Proving Morality

[Kshartle]

So, given adjective definition 2, what are you using for the "stake in the ground from which all things are measured" to say something is "right" - i.e. ' true or correct as a fact' since you later say facts can be disproven?

... Mountaineer

I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and missquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Stop being a dick.

Everyone else but you recognizes that Mountaineer is making a good faith effort to engage you in this thread.  You respond with insults.

Stop it.

I posted two premises:

11. The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

He chose to challenge the first based on the re-stating the second one as "Facts can be proven wrong". A completely different nonsensical meaning. It's difficult enough to respond to all the good faith responses without having to sort through obvious misquotes.

People have a tendency to re-state the arguments of people they disagree with in a dishonest needling manner. It's rude. This is also stuff we covered 10-12 pages ago, and he was here for it. So it's really disappointing and tiresome to go back and re-hash the most basic stuff that's all been covered or untwist clearly incorrect re-wording when the actual quote from me is just a couple posts above. It makes it impossible to do this and I suspect that's the point.

BTW - you could have sent your name-calling message privately since it's not part of the discussion. To do otherwise is a dick move. Take your own advice and stop it.

[Kshartle]

So, given adjective definition 2, what are you using for the "stake in the ground from which all things are measured" to say something is "right" - i.e. ' true or correct as a fact' since you later say facts can be disproven?

... Mountaineer

I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and misquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Do I disagree with your definition of "right" as an adjective?  In the broadest sense, yes.  Your definition is incomplete since you have not provided a definition of truth or correctness that uses some source external to you - i.e. that "stake in the ground by which you are measuring or judging all things".

Fact:  something can be imaginary.
Fact regarding my unique being:  I am not trolling, I am trying to be purposeful.  Do you not see that for me trolling is against everything I believe?  Trolling is dishonest behavior from my sense of "right and wrong" and is contrary to my intent (but frequently failing) of trying to build others up and not tear them down.
Fact:  I cannot remember verbatim everything that was said by all participants in this thread since it began. 
Fact:  I choose not to try to commit this thread to memory. 
Fact:  Earlier I was requested to not overtly discuss "God things" for the time being, that is until you finish with your attempted proof or until that request is retracted if that comes first; I believe I have honored that request.
Fact:  One man's perception of trolling can be another man's perception of bailing when the going gets tough.

So, if you wish my non-participation, just say so, and I will respectfully consider your request.

... Mountaineer

I was frustrated because I just re-posted 1-17 and #6 was - A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

Changing that into "facts can be proven wrong" to challenge the idea that The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct. seemed to me like you are just combing through ever character to be frustrating and not making an honest attempt to add value here.

I'll assume my suspicion is misplaced.

Mountaineer, do you believe anything is "In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct"? If anything is, what is your definition of truth or fact or correctness that uses some source external to you?

Presenting the answer to your own question so we can discuss would actually be a big help as opposed to me having to figure out the precise words that will trigger acceptance for you. If I present my answer there will be a word you want further clarified and another and another after that. I don't know what words have meaning that you will accept without qualification.

[Kshartle]

K,

I think you found it. Ought: the imperative to act or not to act.

Leave the word "correct" out for now. You have to figure out whether that imperative exists.

We KNOW something can be "correct." (The sky is blue)

We understand what an imperative is as a concept, whether or not it exists. Like heaven or sadness.

You have to prove that an imperative exists.


You think you'd be cool with changing 17 to: "ought is an imperative to act."  And just leave the rest for you to prove?  Obviously... If you can prove that imperative exists, that means it is a fact and is correct, and therefore an action can be "correct."

Fair everyone?

This was covered on pages 13-14 already.

Moda, tell me what's wrong with this statement:

"We ought to do what's incorrect"

Tell me if you think that statement is logically inconsistent and self-contradicting and therefore false. If it's false then it's true that the opposite is correct.

"Water is dry" - false, ergo "water is not dry". Not dry = wet or moist whatever......ergo "water is wet"/

[moda0306]

K,

What's wrong with that statement is two-fold. It assumes an action/decision can be correct or incorrect, in and of itself. I barely got to the point where I agreed that a decision could be incorrect if it involves an incorrect interpretation of reality, but I think we have to revisit that...

For if my impression of reality is that "if I go to work today, I will be greeted with a million dollar prize," that is an incorrect understanding of reality... However, does this mean I "ought not" to go to work?

As far as your statement goes, it certainly does sound self-contradictory, but I don't think that as long as something is consistent with reality that we "ought" to do it, and if it's inconsistent we necessarily "ought not" to do it.  Even if we leave morality out... It seems to me, the nature of "oughts" is that they must have some value-premise.

There are a lot of mis-understandings of reality that don't necessarily result in things we would say we "ought not" to do.

Any thoughts on this?

[Kshartle]

K,

What's wrong with that statement is two-fold. It assumes an action/decision can be correct or incorrect, in and of itself. I barely got to the point where I agreed that a decision could be incorrect if it involves an incorrect interpretation of reality, but I think we have to revisit that...

For if my impression of reality is that "if I go to work today, I will be greeted with a million dollar prize," that is an incorrect understanding of reality... However, does this mean I "ought not" to go to work?

As far as your statement goes, it certainly does sound self-contradictory, but I don't think that as long as something is consistent with reality that we "ought" to do it, and if it's inconsistent we necessarily "ought not" to do it.  Even if we leave morality out... It seems to me, the nature of "oughts" is that they must have some value-premise.

There are a lot of mis-understandings of reality that don't necessarily result in things we would say we "ought not" to do.

Any thoughts on this?

This is the reason for my premises/statements...whatever.

Do you dissagree with the objective, adjective definition of "right"?

If the answer is yes.....why do you object to using that adjective and definition thereof to further classify an action?

There is no need to assign additional meaning yet and get ahead. We are simply agreeing on the adjective definition of "right" and putting it in front of the word(s) decision or action. This is as basic as it sounds.


Regading: "We ought to do what is wrong". Do you consider this to be a statement of opinion or of fact?

[Mountaineer]

I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and misquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Do I disagree with your definition of "right" as an adjective?  In the broadest sense, yes.  Your definition is incomplete since you have not provided a definition of truth or correctness that uses some source external to you - i.e. that "stake in the ground by which you are measuring or judging all things".

Fact:  something can be imaginary.
Fact regarding my unique being:  I am not trolling, I am trying to be purposeful.  Do you not see that for me trolling is against everything I believe?  Trolling is dishonest behavior from my sense of "right and wrong" and is contrary to my intent (but frequently failing) of trying to build others up and not tear them down.
Fact:  I cannot remember verbatim everything that was said by all participants in this thread since it began. 
Fact:  I choose not to try to commit this thread to memory. 
Fact:  Earlier I was requested to not overtly discuss "God things" for the time being, that is until you finish with your attempted proof or until that request is retracted if that comes first; I believe I have honored that request.
Fact:  One man's perception of trolling can be another man's perception of bailing when the going gets tough.

So, if you wish my non-participation, just say so, and I will respectfully consider your request.

... Mountaineer

I was frustrated because I just re-posted 1-17 and #6 was - A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

Changing that into "facts can be proven wrong" to challenge the idea that The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct. seemed to me like you are just combing through ever character to be frustrating and not making an honest attempt to add value here.

I'll assume my suspicion is misplaced.

Mountaineer, do you believe anything is "In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct"? If anything is, what is your definition of truth or fact or correctness that uses some source external to you?

Presenting the answer to your own question so we can discuss would actually be a big help as opposed to me having to figure out the precise words that will trigger acceptance for you. If I present my answer there will be a word you want further clarified and another and another after that. I don't know what words have meaning that you will accept without qualification.

K,

I have been requested to not bring "God things" into this discussion so I cannot really answer your question.  However, I will say that my answer would revisit the "Two Kingdoms" discussed in the "Figuring Out Religion" thread and deal with both the horizontal/physical/civil realm as well as the vertical/spiritual/God realm and of course "time" also plays a role.  There are many "truths" that are external to me - for example in the horizontal realm such things as Charles Law, Boyles Law, and the Archimedes principle - i.e. the laws of physics which deal with the temporal world; ditto manmade laws and regulations such as speed limits.  Speed limits are "true" even though variable and different for different locations; if we violate that "true" speed limit, we must expect to suffer the consequences.  These are the easy "truths" as they can be verified using the Scientific Method, but only within the boundaries the laws are intended to be used within.  The hard to absolutely prove "truths" that are external to me are mainly in the vertical realm and their proof is heavily circumstantial (good enough for a courtroom but not good enough for a truth based on logic and reason).  It seems to me your intended proof also lies heavily in that vertical realm, even if you do not recognize or accept it (to paraphrase some of your premises).  The vertical realm is the truly important one for reasons I cannot now discuss in this thread; the horizontal realm is also important since man is responsible for his actions and has to accout for those actions to whatever the appropriate civil authority is.  The reason I'm being so picky is that you seemingly refuse to answer my question about your "stake in the ground" from which you are measuring and judging - trust me when I say that your "stake" is not obvious or appears somewhat movable, at least to me.  Thus, my request to explain in detail your choice of words and definitions.  Most of the time when I have asked you about definitions, your answers indicate your definition is not precisely the same as the one I think of so their is often no common ground from which to proceed.  I also think you are blurring the difference between the horizontal and vertical which, for me, raises a boatload of questions; just because you don't understand the two realms does not mean they are not important.  In other words, I am mightly struggling with your seeming attempt to apply the horizontal "rules" to the vertical.  Does that help or confuse the matter even further?  Of course, as always, my worldview may be wrong, but it is the best one I've come across that explains most, if not all, of man's truly significant questions, some of which I think you are trying to deal with in this thread.  So, I'll extend my offer once more - if you wish me to stop playing in this sandbox, I understand; just ask and I'll consider. 

... Mountaineer 

[Kshartle]

M,

It does confuse me greatly 

I really don't know what to say. There is either reality or not as far as I can tell. If God does exist he's part of that reality. If there are different planes of reality or whatever then they would just be subsets of a larger collection of reality.

When I say something is correct I'm saying it's in accordance with what is true and real. 2+2 does not equal 5 because of what 2 represents, even if it's a concept that only has meaning if humans exist. Gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other, with great mass causing greater attraction (not an expert on gravity). Do I need to elaborate further on the concept of reality and fact vs. falsehood? I just don't know where to go with this. How do we determine what is true and what isn't?

I really didn't want to get into this metaphysical "is anything real" stuff because it makes every conversation about anything moot and pointless. You can always say something isn't true because it might be that nothing is true. Perhaps I'm just copping out by saying I won't go there but it's really because I think it's pointless. 

[Xan]

Actually "2" is a symbol representing something.  2+2=4 exactly because of what "2" and "4" represent.  As Godel proved, though, even a system as simple as the natural numbers will have truths that cannot be proven.

K, what you're really jumping into here is conflating facts with "right".  You're taking the principle that a "wrong" has occurred when somebody has his facts incorrect and extending it to mean that a "right" has occurred when somebody doesn't.  That's totally bogus, it seems to me.

[Kshartle]

Actually "2" is a symbol representing something.  2+2=4 exactly because of what "2" and "4" represent.  As Godel proved, though, even a system as simple as the natural numbers will have truths that cannot be proven.

K, what you're really jumping into here is conflating facts with "right".  You're taking the principle that a "wrong" has occurred when somebody has his facts incorrect and extending it to mean that a "right" has occurred when somebody doesn't.  That's totally bogus, it seems to me.

Xan,

Do you agree with the adjective definitions from Websters or wherever:

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.

[Xan]

No.  That is not the definition of "right".  It is at best a definition of "right", and it's one used for grading math tests, not for determining morality.

Moda says that we agreed to this, with the understanding that we're not talking about moral right and wrong yet.  I guess it's okay, given that understanding, but I'm not sure what the point would be.

Suppose Hitler decided that the world would be better off without Jews.  (Subjective, cannot be proven wrong.)  Suppose he then decides to make the world that way.  (Just making for a better world, right?  What an altruist!)  He reasons that the way to achieve this is to murder millions of people.  Since his reasoning is sound, he must be "right"!  Right?

[Kshartle]

No.  That is not the definition of "right".  It is at best a definition of "right", and it's one used for grading math tests, not for determining morality.

Moda says that we agreed to this, with the understanding that we're not talking about moral right and wrong yet.  I guess it's okay, given that understanding, but I'm not sure what the point would be.

Suppose Hitler decided that the world would be better off without Jews.  (Subjective, cannot be proven wrong.)  Suppose he then decides to make the world that way.  (Just making for a better world, right?  What an altruist!)  He reasons that the way to achieve this is to murder millions of people.  Since his reasoning is sound, he must be "right"!  Right?

We covered statements of opinion vs. statements of facts already. Calling an opinion a fact doesn't make it fact.

[Xan]

So this "morality" you're going to prove is going to show that Hitler was A-OK, since he's acting correctly according to his subjective opinion?

[Kshartle]

So this "morality" you're going to prove is going to show that Hitler was A-OK, since he's acting correctly according to his subjective opinion?

Absolutely not.

I realize you are very eager to get to the end, but constantly trying to jump ahead and make assumptions above what I'm typing is not helpful. It is the opposite.

This is why I asked that if you disagree please point out specifically what you disagree with to make things easy. Adding your own assumptions or ideas and substituting them for what I'm saying and then attacking them is a strawman. It's very easy to do, even if not deliberate.

If we can stick to the premises as laid out and either agree or be specific about a point of disagreement it will be helpful.

Do you disagree with any of the statements and if so where specifically do you think they are wrong? Please don't read into them or draw your own conclusions from them that you then attribute to me and argue against.

I have not mentioned morality anywhere yet and you have many times. I have not discussed morality beyond saying the goal of this is to prove it exists objectively as a function of reality.

[Xan]

Well you've defined the word "right", which I take to be an expression of morality.  Can you use some other word to achieve your aim?  I would help and suggest one, but I have no idea what your aim is.  I'm assuming it's to sneak something in based on having defined (poorly) "right".

[Kshartle]

Well you've defined the word "right", which I take to be an expression of morality.  Can you use some other word to achieve your aim?  I would help and suggest one, but I have no idea what your aim is.  I'm assuming it's to sneak something in based on having defined (poorly) "right".

You are attaching moral baggage to "right" vs. "wrong". Do you not think right and wrong exist outside the concept of morality?

[moda0306]

Morality can only be included in the agreed-upon version of "right" if we can prove that morality has a basis in fact...


This is what Kshartle is trying to prove.


So, so far, I'm ok with something being "right" as its general meaning, and with me waiting for K to prove that morality can be INCLUDED in that meaning.

Now morality involves "oughts."  But that doesn't mean all "oughts" are moral (I ought to plant seeds in dirt if I want them to grow), but it does involve a non-self-evident value premise (I want the seeds to grow, AND I ought to maximize my wants), and we also have to deal with the fact that just because we can prove that an ought does NOT exist, doesn't mean we can prove the opposite... that we ought NOT to do that thing.

So "oughts" is this area where you are making a decision from various options on how to act... I truly don't see how you can EVER have a preferable act from a group of choices without some VALUE (whether proven as objective or it being subjective) driving it. 

So, K, what you're really saying, is that there are VALUES that are inherent to nature.  Inherent to reality. 

So buried within "You OUGHT to do what is INCORRECT" contains a buried value assumption to drive the very idea that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect" in the first place (whether from a moral standpoint (I "ought not" to kill someone), or from a functional standpoint (I "ought" to plant seeds in dirt)).  To the extent an action is a CONCLUSION (decision) of a distinct argument, with its own premises... But the action, as a conclusion to an argument, can be incorrect in more than one way:

1) Invalid: The conclusion didn't come from a necessary result of premises.
2) Unsound: Some of the premises aren't true.

So, as of yet, the only degree I'm willing to agree that a DECISION on a course of action can be "correct" or "incorrect" is if we dive right back into the laws of deductive reasoning (even if we're dealing with "likelihoods" rather than "certain" premises (it is "more likely" that a seed planted in dirt will grow than in sand).

Does that all make sense?  I'm really not trying to "jump ahead," but moreso be VERY careful to describe the "structure" of how a decision/action can be "correct" or "incorrect," and not just say "oh if it i 'in accordance with reality.'"

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

So we probably shouldn't even us the term "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to decisions... it should probably be "valid," "sound" etc.

[Xan]

Well, okay then.

It seems to me that the words "right" and "wrong" DO have moral baggage, and that some other word would be much better.  In fact, I would say words like "truth" and maybe even "reality" are in the same boat...  Because there has to be some underlying, likely unprovable philosophy underneath all of that.

In any case, I'll (temporarily) withdraw my objection to "right" and "wrong", if only to let it be demonstrated that even with that, Kshartle can't prove a shred of morality.

[Pointedstick]

Speaking of planting seeds in the dirt, I seem to have broken my 10-year black thumb streak by finally managing to grow something! It's the most magical feeling to see these little sprouts popping up through the barren desert ground.

[img width=600]https://i.imgur.com/j5U9DrA.jpg[/img]

Just thought I'd inject a little happiness into this thread.

[Xan]

Cool, PS!  That does look quite barren apart from your sprouts.  Impressive.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, I kind of live on Tatooine. As crazy as it might seem, there's something enjoyable about living in the desert (at least to me).

[moda0306]

Could you guys please f*king stop using my examples against me!?


The sky is blue!


Aaaaactually, (insert bs rambling about the nature of the sky here).


Dirt is better than sand to plant seeds.


Aaaaactually, (show picture of a plant that will only grow in a baron desert).


Is this what K feels like when I ask him about the gray area of "self-ownership?"





Totally kidding, dudes...

[Pointedstick]

Dirt is better than sand to plant seeds.

Aaaaactually, (show picture of a plant that will only grow in a baron desert).

Is this what K feels like when I ask him about the gray area of "self-ownership?"

Totally kidding, dudes...

To be fair, it's Blue Grama grass, which is highly drought-tolerant and is pretty much perfect for my climate. So it's not like I'm a brilliant gardener or anything. Obviously most things grow better in dirt than sand.

[Mountaineer]

Morality can only be included in the agreed-upon version of "right" if we can prove that morality has a basis in fact...


This is what Kshartle is trying to prove.


So, so far, I'm ok with something being "right" as its general meaning, and with me waiting for K to prove that morality can be INCLUDED in that meaning.

Now morality involves "oughts."  But that doesn't mean all "oughts" are moral (I ought to plant seeds in dirt if I want them to grow), but it does involve a non-self-evident value premise (I want the seeds to grow, AND I ought to maximize my wants), and we also have to deal with the fact that just because we can prove that an ought does NOT exist, doesn't mean we can prove the opposite... that we ought NOT to do that thing.

So "oughts" is this area where you are making a decision from various options on how to act... I truly don't see how you can EVER have a preferable act from a group of choices without some VALUE (whether proven as objective or it being subjective) driving it. 

So, K, what you're really saying, is that there are VALUES that are inherent to nature.  Inherent to reality. 

So buried within "You OUGHT to do what is INCORRECT" contains a buried value assumption to drive the very idea that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect" in the first place (whether from a moral standpoint (I "ought not" to kill someone), or from a functional standpoint (I "ought" to plant seeds in dirt)).  To the extent an action is a CONCLUSION (decision) of a distinct argument, with its own premises... But the action, as a conclusion to an argument, can be incorrect in more than one way:

1) Invalid: The conclusion didn't come from a necessary result of premises.
2) Unsound: Some of the premises aren't true.

So, as of yet, the only degree I'm willing to agree that a DECISION on a course of action can be "correct" or "incorrect" is if we dive right back into the laws of deductive reasoning (even if we're dealing with "likelihoods" rather than "certain" premises (it is "more likely" that a seed planted in dirt will grow than in sand).

Does that all make sense?  I'm really not trying to "jump ahead," but moreso be VERY careful to describe the "structure" of how a decision/action can be "correct" or "incorrect," and not just say "oh if it i 'in accordance with reality.'"

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

So we probably shouldn't even us the term "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to decisions... it should probably be "valid," "sound" etc.

moda,

Basically, it seems you are talking about what I was trying to get K to say re. "What is your stake in the ground by which you are measuring and judging?"  Which I do remember being answered yet by K.

And, as an aside  you can grow seed without dirt.  The seed only requires some location that will allow nutrients to be delivered to the seed at the proper temperature for germination and growth.  Example: hydroponically grown tomatoes.  So, you can grow seeds in sand, you will just have to assure a source of nutrients (fertilizer, minerals, etc.). 

My point: Can you see why I (and I believe Xan) are such sticklers for very precise definitions?  What one person thinks is so startlingly clear can be very blurry or muddy to another.  Words have meaning.  A group of words conveys one or more thoughts from the speaker's mind to the mind of the recipient.  If the words are not perceived exactly the same, it is likely the resulting conveyed information will not be that which was intended.  It is just like buying a car:  if you send a letter to a car salesman and say "I want a new car to drive to work" without being very clear, you could end up with a Rolls Royce with 0 miles on the odometer that is painted in bright pink and green or a used Yugo rust bucket (new to you) that breaks down every 100 feet (the Yugo would in all probabilty get you to work eventually but just not in the time frame or manner in which you intended, and, here you thought all rational humans, including the idiot salesman, would understand your statement in your letter).

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Morality can only be included in the agreed-upon version of "right" if we can prove that morality has a basis in fact...


This is what Kshartle is trying to prove.


So, so far, I'm ok with something being "right" as its general meaning, and with me waiting for K to prove that morality can be INCLUDED in that meaning.

Now morality involves "oughts."  But that doesn't mean all "oughts" are moral (I ought to plant seeds in dirt if I want them to grow), but it does involve a non-self-evident value premise (I want the seeds to grow, AND I ought to maximize my wants), and we also have to deal with the fact that just because we can prove that an ought does NOT exist, doesn't mean we can prove the opposite... that we ought NOT to do that thing.

So "oughts" is this area where you are making a decision from various options on how to act... I truly don't see how you can EVER have a preferable act from a group of choices without some VALUE (whether proven as objective or it being subjective) driving it. 

So, K, what you're really saying, is that there are VALUES that are inherent to nature.  Inherent to reality. 

So buried within "You OUGHT to do what is INCORRECT" contains a buried value assumption to drive the very idea that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect" in the first place (whether from a moral standpoint (I "ought not" to kill someone), or from a functional standpoint (I "ought" to plant seeds in dirt)).  To the extent an action is a CONCLUSION (decision) of a distinct argument, with its own premises... But the action, as a conclusion to an argument, can be incorrect in more than one way:

1) Invalid: The conclusion didn't come from a necessary result of premises.
2) Unsound: Some of the premises aren't true.

So, as of yet, the only degree I'm willing to agree that a DECISION on a course of action can be "correct" or "incorrect" is if we dive right back into the laws of deductive reasoning (even if we're dealing with "likelihoods" rather than "certain" premises (it is "more likely" that a seed planted in dirt will grow than in sand).

Does that all make sense?  I'm really not trying to "jump ahead," but moreso be VERY careful to describe the "structure" of how a decision/action can be "correct" or "incorrect," and not just say "oh if it i 'in accordance with reality.'"

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

So we probably shouldn't even us the term "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to decisions... it should probably be "valid," "sound" etc.

moda,

Basically, it seems you are talking about what I was trying to get K to say re. "What is your stake in the ground by which you are measuring and judging?"  Which I do remember being answered yet by K.

And, as an aside  you can grow seed without dirt.  The seed only requires some location that will allow nutrients to be delivered to the seed at the proper temperature for germination and growth.  Example: hydroponically grown tomatoes.  So, you can grow seeds in sand, you will just have to assure a source of nutrients (fertilizer, minerals, etc.). 

My point: Can you see why I (and I believe Xan) are such sticklers for very precise definitions?  What one person thinks is so startlingly clear can be very blurry or muddy to another.  Words have meaning.  A group of words conveys one or more thoughts from the speaker's mind to the mind of the recipient.  If the words are not perceived exactly the same, it is likely the resulting conveyed information will not be that which was intended.  It is just like buying a car:  if you send a letter to a car salesman and say "I want a new car to drive to work" without being very clear, you could end up with a Rolls Royce with 0 miles on the odometer that is painted in bright pink and green or a used Yugo rust bucket (new to you) that breaks down every 100 feet (the Yugo would in all probabilty get you to work eventually but just not in the time frame or manner in which you intended, and, here you thought all rational humans, including the idiot salesman, would understand your statement in your letter).

... Mountaineer

I see why you're being a stickler.  It's why we all are.  It's why Kshartle saw fit to include 90 premises in his "obvious" argument .  And I am fully aware that my "sky" and "dirt" analogies are ONLY useful to the extent the illustrate a difference between another type of assertion... I think people get what I mean ... when I explain a "moral ought" (you ought to save that child), to a non-moral ought (you ought to plant those seeds in dirt).

Can you imagine what would happen if philosophers were to write a dictionary?

I can't even imagine...

[Mountaineer]

And I am fully aware that my "sky" and "dirt" analogies are ONLY useful to the extent the illustrate a difference between another type of assertion... I think people get what I mean ... when I explain a "moral ought" (you ought to save that child), to a non-moral ought (you ought to plant those seeds in dirt).

Can you imagine what would happen if philosophers were to write a dictionary?

I can't even imagine...

I get it!  Dirt is blue and the sky is heavier than dirt!  Finally ...... 

Seriously, I left out a "not" when stating my question to K ... I do NOT remember him answering my question about the stake in the ground.    This is the second error I've made this decade. 

And for that dictionary:  How about one co-written by philosophers and theologians? 

... Mountaineer