@Eaglebauer Said

Causality?

@gakINGKONG Said

It's a moral imperative

A thing ought to be because of it's rightness. If there is no rightness then oughtness can't be.

@Erimitus Said

The problem of induction?

@Eaglebauer Said

I don't understand the question, can you elaborate? (and forgive my thickness today)

The school of behavioral psychology says that morality ascends from the games we play as children (I've been reading a lot of Jung lately) and I think there is probably some credence to that, but I also believe that it arises out of an understanding of causality and what actions are best for ourselves or the societies in which we live coupled with our instincts and an idea of empathy.

That last part, in my opinion, is crucial. A psychopath has no empathy and thus, no morality. He can slowly insert a knife into a human child as nonchalantly as if he was slicing a loaf of bread and he will feel no remorse. He understands causality, and has instincts, but no empathy.

But causality is really the teacher of what actions are good and bad because we gain the understanding (in terms of "the herd" ) of which ones will produce better results overall. Sure, theft can produce a good result for the thief, but overall it's a bad result for society (the herd) so it's seen as morally incorrect.

@chaski Said

Ought (sometimes spelled "aught" ) is zero... so ought is naught.

@Erimitus Said

Ought is naught is the thesis. (note: nice phrase, I would like to barrow it if you do not mind.

@Erimitus Said

The question is; how can we determine what ought to be based on what is. There seems to be no connection.

@chaski Said

Please use it. If you make lots of money via T-Shirt and/or bumper sticker sales, I only ask that you reward me with one unopened 750ml bottle of Tequila, Rum or Brandy. I leave the choice of brand to your discretion.




What "ought to be" is dependent on one of two factors.

1. Which religion do you believe to be the one and only religion? That religion provides the guidance for what "ought to be", though sometimes religious dogma defaults to god's plan being mysterious and unknowable. None the less, "your" religion provides much in the way of guidance.

Example: A christian, by doctrine and dogma, should believe that god is in control and therefore everything that "ought to be" is. This is somewhat confused by the fallacy of "free will", which somehow allows for humans to go against and violate god's will & his vast eternal plan. Those rebellious "free will" exercisers "ought" to be good christians so that they can go to heaven and spend eternity prostrate and/or singing glory to their creator. That is what "ought to be".

2. If you don't "believe" in god(s), then what "ought to be" is subjective and based on what those in power and/or what the "majority" want.

Example: Trump thinks that everyone in the USA (and the world?) should believe him regardless of facts (and perhaps spend their time prostrate and/or singing glory to him). That is what "ought to be".

Ultimately, however, the question comes down to what "you" want...what you think "ought to be".

The chances are that "you" will be very disappointed if you are too idealistic.

I recommend a pragmatic long term survival of the species approach, but that is just how I think it "ought to be".

@Erimitus Said

TY

@chaski Said

You are welcome.

Subjecting people to my "oughts" brings me pleasure.

@Eaglebauer Said

I don't understand the question, can you elaborate? (and forgive my thickness today)

The school of behavioral psychology says that morality ascends from the games we play as children (I've been reading a lot of Jung lately) and I think there is probably some credence to that, but I also believe that it arises out of an understanding of causality and what actions are best for ourselves or the societies in which we live coupled with our instincts and an idea of empathy.

That last part, in my opinion, is crucial. A psychopath has no empathy and thus, no morality. He can slowly insert a knife into a human child as nonchalantly as if he was slicing a loaf of bread and he will feel no remorse. He understands causality, and has instincts, but no empathy.

But causality is really the teacher of what actions are good and bad because we gain the understanding (in terms of "the herd" ) of which ones will produce better results overall. Sure, theft can produce a good result for the thief, but overall it's a bad result for society (the herd) so it's seen as morally incorrect.

@Erimitus Said

Comment: I have no answer and I can’t even phrase a cogent question. Never the less….
________________________________________

SOME DEFINITIONS OFFERED FOR APPROVAL OR CHALANGE

Morality: contemporary regional standards of conduct <<dictionary>>

Causality: everything that happens has an antecedent cause <<dictionary>>

Utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number << Wikipedia>>

________________________________________

WHAT I BELIEVE IS FACT OFFERED FOR CHALANGE

There is nothing that is either moral or immoral that thinking does not make it so, <<Hamlet>>

There is no innate morality (tabula rasa ect.) <<Erimitus>> <<et al>>

There are [objects] of [perception] <<fact>

Objects have [properties] <<fact>>

Objects are [classified] based on the observation of their properties <<fact>>


________________________________________

OP

Q. how I can know what ought to be (i.e., that which is the morally right action)) based on what is (i.e., empirical [evidence]?)

REPHRASE OF OP

Q. How can contemporary regional standards of conduct) be based on empirical evidence? <<Rephrase of OP>>


________________________________________

Eagle: Morality arises out of an understanding of causality

Erimitus: If I understand you correctly you are saying morality is based on acknowledging that actions have consequences. Is that correct?

________________________________________

Eagle: Morality arises out of what actions are best for ourselves or the society in which we live. <<Eagle>>

Erimitus: Utilitarianism…

Erimitus: That does not sound right to me and I cannot argue for or against it. If you could explain further it might help me understand. …and I will think on it.

________________________________________

Erimitus: [Empirical claims] are tentative [i.e., probability estimates] based on available information.

Erimitus: As new information becomes available the empirical claims are confirmed, altered or abandoned.

Comment: I am going nowhere with this. Drat! We seem to almost always end up with the mind body problem. Double Drat!!

Comment: If you do not understand what I am talking about, well, neither do I.

@Erimitus Said

Eagle: Morality ascends from the games we play as children << The school of behavioral psychology>>

Erimitus: ...Trial and error as the individual personality develops. As children we do it in the form of games while as adults, well, we still do it in the form of games but in a way that is far more sophisticated.