Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2020, 3:44 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 7:44 pm
Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 2:16 pm
...
You keep sliding between different uses of “ought”.
There is the term as applied to the way the world is, as in “if you want that brick to fall you ought to try letting go of it”, or “if you want to improve fitness you ought to try jogging”, and then there is the term as applied to moral argument as in “you ought not to hurt people unnecessarily”.
I cannot see that you have anywhere derived the second, moral sort of ought, which is the topic of this thread, from the ought relating to the way the world is. You just keep restating your personal prejudices, which you are welcome to to be sure, but it is not reasoned argument. This has been pointed out by so many so often, and you have kept on trying to spin the one into the other, that it is a wonder you are not quite dizzy.
Let's fill those two statements out:
A. If you want that brick to fall then you ought to let go of it.
B. If you want to act morally then you ought not hurt people unnecessarily.
Now the content is different, but the form is indistinguishable, and the meaning of "ought" is identical. In order to accomplish X, you ought (or ought not) do Y.
"A" is true due to gravity.
"B" is true due to the objective goal of morality (to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone).
Ahh Marvin, you really don’t want to play do you?
A) relates to a law of physics, objective in the sense of inter-subjectively testable, empirically supported. We can let go the brick and see it fall.
B) relates to your subjective opinion of what morality is. Boldly stating it is objective assumes what is in question and it clearly is not inter-subjectively agreed and I and others have explained that we believe it is not, as you keep stating, objective. We can hurt people and not see anything beyond that. Whether it was an immoral act is a further judgement. You can apply your judgement, but it is all yours. Others will apply judgements of their own. You can disagree, but all you do is keep restating your own opinion. You offer no reason to agree with it that does not assume what is in question.
But since you are clearly not interested in engaging I’ll leave it there too.