↪Banno your short responses are an indication that you avoid diving in and challenging your preconceptions on the topic. — Nickolasgaspar

Meh. They are an indication that I am eating dinner and watching the news. Maybe tomorrow.

well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction, so I am not so sure about that....but you can always falsify my hypothesis. Enjoy your dinner and "news" ..if that is possible by our modern media!.

Cheers. GO back to this, if you would:

Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.

I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"? — Banno

Do you understand the is/ought distinction?

DO you agree that there is a difference in kind between saying how things are, and how things ought to be?

you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. — Isaac

:scream:

You mean to say a prisoner will be released from jail feeling more bitter than when he was arraigned? No wonder recidivism is so rampant. Criminologists should talk to biologists/psychologists.

Meh. They are an indication that I am eating dinner and watching the news. Maybe tomorrow — Banno

:rofl:

well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction — Nickolasgaspar

:brow:

↪Nickolasgaspar
Cheers. GO back to this, if you would:

Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.

I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"? — Banno


Do you understand the is/ought distinction?

DO you agree that there is a difference in kind between saying how things are, and how things ought to be? — Banno

How is this relevant to my position????
Nature stays indifferent on the topic of our well being. We as agents that value our well being investigate which biological metrics enable the state of well being and what kind of behavior among peers in a society promotes it.
In the above framework , we don't have to assume agency in nature and the is/ought is only relevant to what we value and want for all the members of our society.
This is the only way our list of oughts can be evaluated....under a shared principle.
The is/ought relation is a subject of study...you should dismiss it automatically because some philosophers did not have the science knowledge to analyze it.

well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction, so I am not so sure about that....but you can always falsify my hypothesis. Enjoy your dinner and "news" ..if that is possible by our modern media!. — Nickolasgaspar

It's well known that Banno is a marsupial Hobbit. It is rare he is not having a poached egg on toast with vegemite, or some such abominable snack.

no he is arguing that well being is not a good principles since incarcerating people affects some biological metrics that are linked with how immoral acts affect our biology(my foundations on the dominant place of well being as a principle for moral judgments)....thus punishing people for doing immoral acts is an immoral act.
I pointed out that those metrics are useful to show us that well being has biological foundations(not arbitrary) and moral/immoral behavior affects our biological negative or positive.

Nature stays indifferent on the topic of our well being. We as agents that value our well being investigate which biological metrics enable the state of well being and what kind of behavior among peers in a society promotes it.
In the above framework , we don't have to assume agency in nature and the is/ought is only relevant to what we value and want for all the members of our society.
This is the only way our list of oughts can be evaluated....under a shared principle. — Nickolasgaspar

This topic interest me I have a science background. If I understand you correctly you are saying:

-We have values
-One of the things we value is our wellbeing
-We can then use science to investigate the best societal methods to achieve that wellbeing

Please correct me if I am mis-stating your position.

I mostly agree with you. However I would say that only the third point above is science. The third scientific point is dependant on the first two philosophical points to specify the values of the desired outcomes.

It is the conundrum I faced as someone form a science background where eventually I had to accept that philosophy was required in order to specify what is valuable, which science can then investigate. That is how I ended up on this forum!

Now if everyone agreed on the value of outcomes, there would be no issues. We would all just live happily ever after together. But the issue is people value things differently on the most contentious issues. You mention the shared principle - the problem comes when there is disagreement on what should be the shared principle. Science can't answer that question.

Once people have placed values on outcomes, then science can be effectively used to investigate how best to achieve that outcome, based on those values. We definitely should be promoting the use of science to analyse and improve society.

I still don't get it. If imprisonment messes up our brains, chemically, we need to look into how long the effect lasts; quite possibly the damage to brain chemistry is permanent or long-lasting. This means those who've been released from gaol (physically) are still doing time (mentally). :chin:

We need to reevaluate the methods we use in our correction facilities because they are against the well being of the prisoners.
That argument also favors the role of "well being" in morality.

I mostly agree with you. However I would say that only the third point above is science. The third scientific point is dependant on the first two philosophical points to specify the values of the desired outcomes. — PhilosophyRunner

No, we can objectively prove that both premises are based on evidence provided by science. I have explained them and I can do that again if you like.
In short our biological drives, urges and biology (homeostasis) have evolved in a specific way that force us through affections and emotions to strive for specific things and conditions. What we strive for is what we reason in to the concept of "value".

It is the conundrum I faced as someone form a science background where eventually I had to accept that philosophy was required in order to specify what is valuable, which science can then investigate. That is how I ended up on this forum! — PhilosophyRunner

-We are in agreement on that...but for our philosophy to be valid it must be founded on Objective systematic knowledge (Science).
I am not the one who tried to distinquish science from philosophy. I always state that you can not do science without philosophy and good philosophy without science.
The philosophy needed in this case offers us Sound Arguments since all the premises are founded on science.

Now if everyone agreed on the value of outcomes, there would be no issues. We would all just live happily ever after together. But the issue is people value things differently on the most contentious issues. You mention the shared principle - the problem comes when there is disagreement on what should be the shared principle. Science can't answer that question. — PhilosophyRunner

-Of course it can. Our disagreement doesn't make the principle or its metrics subjective! In order to understand how we value things we need to explain how our biology experiences our environment, how those stimuli produce affections and emotions and how we reason them in to feelings, values, meaning.
We "value" specific things based on what our biological drives and urges are evolved to strive for.
Those are not as subjective as most people think.

We need to reevaluate the methods we use in our correction facilities because they are against the well being of the prisoners.
That argument also favors the role of "well being" in morality. — Nickolasgaspar

:up: Prisons, I checked, can be traced back to the friggin' Bronze Age. I'm just shocked that it's still in vogue. Do you know of other Bronze Age relics that have survived the test of time? We need an upgrade and fast. Who's in charge here? Who's responsible for analyzing all the research papers on overall well-being of people, criminal or not?

You say:

In short our biological drives, urges and biology (homeostasis) have evolved in a specific way that force us through affections and emotions to strive for specific things and conditions. What we strive for is what we reason in to the concept of "value" — Nickolasgaspar

I fully agree with that. If we are following the scientific method, we then have to empirically observe the human species, to find out what they strive for according to the above paragraph.

And what we see empirically is that often they strive for working together. Sometimes they strive to fight each other and assert dominance. Sometimes they murder and rape. Sometimes they hold hands and sing together.

It is the way it is. So we can observe human behaviour objectively, I agree.

It is when prescribing action, that problems arise. When I observe a murder being committed, and I say that it was objectively wrong, I am saying the empirical world should change to fit my theory. However good science does the opposite - where empirical evidence and theory differ, you update the theory to match the empirical evidence.

Take the following example:
- I have a scientific theory of human behaviour, that says people in situation X would not want to kill each other. Due to the way we have evolved, humans will value not killing in situation X.
- I observe humans in situation X. I observe a human kill another in situation X
- Following the scientific method, I now have to update my theory. I can no longer hold onto a theory that humans in situation X will not want to kill - I have empirical evidence that my previous theory was wrong.

An objective morality theory, on the other hand, attempts to say that the empirical observation was wrong, and the empirical world needs to change to fit the theory. It is fundamentally different to science.

So science cannot say what ought to happen, if that didn't happen.

Talk about rigidity.
The point is not to lie. You seem to think the point is to have the conversation on the other person's terms.
— baker

No, I'm pointing to the fact that truth telling can kill people. If we ignore potential consequences we are a fools. — Tom Storm

No. When it comes to people deliberately killing people, this is because the killer had the means the motive, and the opportunity to do so.

The Nazi scenario is emotionally loaded, but grossly unrealistic. If you think a Nazi patrol looking for hidden Jews would simply take a person's word for gold, and move on after a No ..

The cure for all existential doubt and for all the distress that might befall the philosophically oriented is to not be philosophical, but to be superficial. That is, ignorance is bliss. So, if you wish to cure your wandering and confusion by refusing to look behind the fact that the goal you're pursuing actually has no meaning, I guess you could temporarily deceive yourself into thinking you had real purpose and that would get you through the day. — Hanover

Relative socioeconomic wellbeing shouldn't be underestimated. Not as a goal, nor in its consequences for the person's metaphysical outlook. It seems such people actually are happy.

The Nazi scenario is emotionally loaded, but grossly unrealistic. If you think a Nazi patrol looking for hidden Jews would simply take a person's word for gold, and move on after a No .. — baker

No. The Nazi scenario is not 'grossly unrealistic' - it happened to my grandparents in World War Two - German troops regularly went door to door asking locals if they had any information about Jews and/or resistance people in hiding. My grandmother also happened to be hiding people in her basement.

But this scenario applies to anyone who is asking you provide an answer to a question the true answer of which which could result in someone's harm. It's a simple way to dramatise the flaws in deontological approaches. Another good example would be a violent male asking if anyone knows the new address of his ex-partner who has fled his attacks. This comes up in my work a lot.

The Nazi scenario is not 'grossly unrealistic' - it happened to my grandparents in World War Two - German troops regularly went door to door asking locals if they had any information about Jews and/or resistance people in hiding. My grandmother also happened to be hiding people in her basement. — Tom Storm

And the Nazi soldiers just took her word for gold?

This is what is so unrralistic about this scenario: that the soldiers would just belive people.

But this scenario applies to anyone who is asking you provide an answer to a question the true answer of which which could result in someone's harm. It's a simple way to dramatise the flaws in deontological approaches. Another good example would be a violent male asking if anyone knows the new address of his ex-partner who has fled his attacks. This comes up in my work a lot.

You are still letting the other person dictate the terms.

You could say any number of things in reply, or nothing at all, and they could all be true, and still not divulge sensitive information. You just need to be creative. Probably your granparents were.

How is this relevant to my position???? — Nickolasgaspar

SO that's a "no", then. You do not understand the is/ought distinction. So you have not understood, yet alone directly addressed, the main ethical objection to your program.

You are hiding behind this artifact which is irrelevant to my argument.
You haven't post a single argument. You just post irrelevant links.
This distinction is not an answer to Secular Morality.

do yourself a favor and read about all the critique on the is/ought "problem" before using it in the future . Its a superficial excuse that can't much our modern epistemology.
i.e. start from wikipedia...check the long list of responses and follow the references.

Well, no. You are refusing to address the main criticism of your argument: Why ought we seek wellbeing?

Good to see you are doing some research on the issue. You are a clever lad, and you will eventually see the problem. Then you can start doing ethics.

And the Nazi soldiers just took her word for gold?

This is what is so unrralistic about this scenario: that the soldiers would just belive people. — baker

It would help if you didn't prejudge this. Yes, they accepted her words. They had no reason to think she knew anything. These were weekly door knocks undertaken in the hope that neighbors would rat each other out. Three minutes at each house in the street.

If they suspected my grandparents, they would have torn the place apart and wouldn't have asked the questions in the first place.

-"Why ought we seek wellbeing?"
-This is what you are failing to understand even if I have explained it multiple times in these 11 pages.
We don't ought to seek wellbeing! Its like asking why do we ought to seek a state without pain!
We are preconditioned by our biology and our basic drives and urges! Do you choose to ignore your basic emotions of hunger or thirst or feeling too hot or too cold or to be isolated. By addressing those basic emotions and urges you promote your well being.
Why is this so difficult for you???

So I am not refusing to address any criticism. The criticism you push is scientifically uninformed. We don't choose what we value or seek , especially when things like well being allow us to "be"(survive) and be well (flourish, avoid suffering,)

Suppose I agree that we do see wellbeing. The ethical question is, ought we?

And this is what no amount of scientific evidence can address.

Not sure if this helps, but you may recall that Sam Harris compares wellbeing in morality to 'health' in medicine. We have the science of medicine devoted to health and yet health is not easy to define and people are in disagreement about what health looks like, or what impacts some things have on health. Sure, elements of health are measurable - and many of these also constitute wellbeing measurements. If smoking causes cancer, presumably it is also morally wrong to sell tobacco....

Great example. Why do you think pharmaceuticals decide to produce pain killers but not pain inducers to by over the counter? Because we value specific states without the need to convince ourselves that we ought to value states free of pain.

-"If smoking causes cancer, presumably it is also morally wrong to sell tobacco.... "
-of course is unethical for many reasons.

Suppose I agree that we do see wellbeing. The ethical question is, ought we?

And this is what no amount of scientific evidence can address. — Banno

That is NOT an ethical question...its a given since we know we have biological drives and urges that "force'' to survive and avoid suffering.
We don't have a choice valuing well being. Science can even point to the biological mechanisms responsible for seeking wellbeing.