/lit/ - Literature

>>16324291
What the fuck are you talking about dipshit

>>16324291
>"I ought to not ought" is a contradiction and unsustainable.
>"I ought to ought" is consistent and sustainable.
Both 'sentences' are literally gibberish in English. Are you ESL?

We all know morality is absolute and if you say otherwise you’ve been kiked since birth.
Kill yourself faggot.

>>16324313
>>16324301
What is so confusing?
"I ought to not ought" is a prescription prescribing to not prescribe. Thus, it's a contradiction.

For example: I wouldn't prescribe Stephen Hawking to save a drowning victim, since he doesn't even have the ability to save them. But for a normal person who can swim, the story is different. They are unavoidably presented with a choice: to save the victim, or to let the victim drown. Fulfilling either option is possible for them. Thus, that person becomes a moral agent. Regardless of what choice they choose doesn't even matter: what matters is only that they *do* have the choice. They can use whatever beliefs they want to decide which option to go with, but what can't be avoided is that they do have to decide, somehow. Whatever they decide to do could conceivably be justified in some hypothetical moral ideology. I'm not interested in *how* they justify their choice (to let the victim drown, for example), but only in the fact that they did make that choice. They are potentially moral regardless of what they decide to do.

But what happens after that person goes home? What if, due to the stress, they never want to be presented with such a decision ever again? If they cripple their own legs, then they can just avoid moral responsibility next time they see a drowning victim. Without working legs, they won't need to decide what to do in that scenario, and life would be so much morally simpler. Should they choose to cripple their own legs? Should they choose to have fewer "shoulds" in the future? Should they not should ever again?

I believe such a decision would be wrong. To "should away shoulds" is unsustainable. You can only moonshadow yourself so many times until the universe just says enough is enough. I also think there's a logical contradiction in the statement "should ~should", since I'd be prescribing the act of not prescribing.

Conversely, if that person chose to take swimming lessons to become an even better swimmer, then they would face even more choices in the future since now they wouldn't just be choosing whether or not to save a drowning victim who's near the shore, but also drowning victims who are further out in previously-unreachable locations. They would become a greater moral agent. To make the choice to become a better swimmer would be prescribing the act of prescribing. That is not only logically consistent, but the universe also wouldn't stop you. It's both logically and physically sustainable.

>>16324318
I agree that morality is absolute. There is an objective correct choice, and an objective wrong choice.
Killing myself would be an objectively incorrect choice to make.

You might be retarded

nigger

>>16324318
You’re 16, aren’t you?

>>16324378
>"I ought to not ought" is a prescription prescribing to not prescribe.
No, it is not anything since it is not a grammatical sentence of English.

>>16324378
>"I ought to not ought" is a prescription prescribing to not prescribe.

>>16324291
The absolute state of western philosophy

>>16324472
>>16324508
I don't know why you're having trouble with this, but I'll rephrase nevertheless:

"Prescribing against prescribing" is a contradiction.
"Prescribing prescribing" is consistent.

Thus, when faced with a moral dilemma, prescribing the option that results in fewer acts of prescribing is wrong. So for example: "I should kill myself" is objectively wrong because then I can't prescribe anything ever again.

Is there really no one here who gets it?

>>16324516
Why are you insulting this? I'm proving an objective moral framework here.

>>16324378
That's a good start man, but I think you need to differentiate between causation and responsibility.
Causation doesn't necessitate responsibility.

Here's my take on responsibility :
1) Direct attempt(with causality). You try to cause something and it happened.
2) Negligence. Your inaction causes harm while you also had a duty to fulfill. An obligation to uphold.
3) Recklessness. You know you might unintentionally perform an action and you accidentally do.

That's where I think people should try to draw the line. To further elucidate my point, take for instance the buying of dog food. If you buy dog food you are causing other animals to one day die, but if you don't buy the dog food your pet would eventually die. I don't think one should be responsible for killing either way in this circumstance. It is more like you don't have a duty to keep animals alive and your conscience is kept clean.

What duty is man obligated to fulfill? That's another quandary.

>>16324545
>everyone ITT calling you retarded
>"n-no, you guys just don't get it!!!
Maybe THINK about it before posting you worthless subhuman faggot.

>>16324545
>"Prescribing against prescribing" is a contradiction.
False.

>>16324545
>I don't know why you're having trouble with this
>"I ought to not ought"
>I should should not
>I could could not
>I would would not
please finish high school before posting

>>16324291
What does “ought” mean, exactly? What does “should” mean? What is “good”? The words might as well be meaningless. In describing actions and their effects, we can only understand them by how much we desire them, and how much we benefit by them. To say that I should do action A is really to say that I would be better off if I were to do action A. There is no duty or obligation here. It is simply the case that action A would result in the greatest result for myself.

>>16324561
If you don't explain why I'm wrong, then this will be the last time I engage with you.
>>16324564
Why is it false? You'd literally be doing something you're saying not to do. That's a contradiction.

>>16324554
In the dog food example: you would do that which maximizes your choices.
Feeding your dog would give you more options than letting your dog starve.

>>16324584
"action A" can be an action of prescribing something.
"I should prescribe X"

In regards to moral obligations, I think everyone would agree with me that moral obligations only exist for people who can fulfill those moral obligations, right? Moreover, it's only a moral obligation if the person in question is able to refuse to fulfill it as well. There must be a choice, and either option must be possible to fulfill.

For example: obligations don't exist for invalids, so "I should become an invalid" would relinquish me from obligations that I currently have. But that's equal to saying "I should not prescribe myself my current prescriptions", and therefore a contradiction. So "I should become an invalid" is wrong!

This process works for any moral dilemma.

>>16324516
It is clear from that OP hasn't read any philosophy, western or eastern.

>>16324638
>You'd literally be doing something you're saying not to do.
It happens every day, kiddo. Mere hypocrisy doesn't cause spacetime to swallow itself.

>>16324638
>If you don't explain why I'm wrong, then this will be the last time I engage with you.
you don't even understand basic syntax >>16324582
either you are ESL or brain damaged

>>16324638
obligation is a nonsense word. What binds the obligation? Be more precise and say that the action simply leads to a more preferable outcome. We like to use shortened language, so instead of saying “It would lead to a more preferable life if you do X” people might say “You should do x.” Unfortunately you’re getting lost in these words.

>>16324660
Actually, the universe will literally stop a prescription from existing if it's wrong. Hence, objective morality.
Some prescriptions are sustainable. Some aren't.
>>16324667
Human preferences have nothing to do with what is/isn't sustainable.

>>16324694
>Human preferences have nothing to do with what is/isn't sustainable.
So do you not prefer the sustainable over the unsustainable?

>>16324545
>"Prescribing prescribing" is consistent.
>Reading reading
>Writing writing
>Talking talking
>Thinking thinking
please stop you are embarrassing us in front of /mu/

>>16324757
>what is metacognition

>>16324849
this board is infested and cannot be cured
>thinking thinking
>thinking [about] thinking
how can you not understand the problem with just having 2 intransitive verbs in a clause and trying to make it a sentence

>>16324873
those words double as nouns though

>>16324885
Why would they be nouns? OP's retarded sentence is two intransitive verbs, thus the examples are intransitive verbs.

>>16324905
idk im a retard

OP taking a lot of Ls here

>>16324291
Objective morality is correct

Objective morality is not human morality

human morality is the human interpretation of objective morality and it is a joke

>>16324378
Do you not see the irony of what you're saying though? If you think the best prescription (which, as you've ignored, still may not be worth prescribing) is to do whatever keeps the most choices on the table, then what you've suggested as the best choice is simply to make as little if one as possible. You have already crippled your own legs by the very act of thinking in prescriptive terms.

>>16324378
Do you not see the irony of what you're saying though? If you think the best prescription (which, as you've ignored, still may not be worth prescribing) is to do whatever keeps the most choices on the table, then what you've suggested as the best choice is simply to make as little of one as possible. You have already crippled your own legs by the very act of thinking in prescriptive terms.

>>16325338
>bro why is this so hard to grasp???

>>16325406
that doesn't follow.
not making choices is a choice that will put me into a position of fewer choices.

>>16324291
OP I just want to say I was able to understand your argument in the first post, and furthermore found your expanded explanation elucidating and in line with my initial interpretation. I think it's a novel approach, and while it may overlap and intersect with prior work in ethics I'm not sure why that is a problem or what posters on this board expect. I will also add I have a minor in philosophy and have read most of the western canon.
Reading the replies in this thread was infuriating. It would appear no one wants to engage with what you're saying. They either dismiss outright or present their own pet theory. For this reason I wanted to come to your defense. I want to encourage you to keep thinking in way you are thinking; that the world needs people like you and to keep working on your ideas.
In regards to the actual content I would say one problem that comes to mind is that the "ought not to ought" can be reframed in nonprescriptive terms. That is to say the amoralist can exist assyemtrically with respect to morality. He neither presribes nor not-prescribes but instead posits an alternative basis for action - for example, determinism.

>>16324545
>I'm proving an objective moral framework here.
you sure are buddy
ask mom and I'm sure she'll put a gold star on the fridge

>>16324291
>"I ought to not ought" is a contradiction and unsustainable.
Do you mean people saying they shouldn't do something? I tell myself I shouldn't do heroine, and so far it's been pretty sustainable
>"I ought to ought" is consistent and sustainable.
So "I should do what I think I should do"?

You're wording is bumfuck retarded OP
>>16324378
You seem more focused on choices and prescriptions, and if a persona can do something, rather than if they WANT to do something.

>>16326661
wants/desires/dislikes aren't foundations of objective morality

when you avoid heroin, you are choosing to maintain a state of sobriety which will lead to you making more choices. If there was someone passed out from heroin, they wouldn't be expected to function like someone sober would. When you do heroin, you are crippling yourself and avoiding the moral choices you have to make when sober. Thus, it's wrong to do heroin.

Notice how your like/dislike of heroin has nothing to do whether you should/shouldn't do heroin.

>>16326540
thanks

I've seen the determinism critique of morality, but determinism doesn't change the fact that I'm still presented with a choice when faced with a moral dilemma. I have a choice, even if I don't have free will.

When a swimmer sees a drowning victim, even if the swimmer doesn't have free will, there is still a process that happens in the brain to decide what to do. Whereas a non-swimmer would never even have that process in the first place. There is something different in the psyche of the swimmer vs the psyche of the non-swimmer.

And again, I am not prescribing the swimmer to save the victim. I am just showing that any decision making process that leads to fewer decisions in the future is contradictory (since you'd be prescribing against prescribing). So it's wrong for the swimmer to cripple himself because he won't have to make decisions next time he sees a drowning victim.

>>16324545
>Prescribing against prescribing
Is actually proscribing
>Prescribing prescribing
Is circular
>OP
Is a faggot

>>16324584
Indeed, 'obligations' are simply anticipated consequences.

>>16324301
>stuffed in the locker by Chad

You hate to see it. Get well soon OP

bumping to help get OP out of the locker

>>16324378
I like you anon

>>16324472
>>16324662
Why be a dipshit like this? You know what he meant, and if you didn't, you're a retard.

>>16328145
not him, but I also have no idea what OP meant