3RU7AL

The key difference here is that person (A) planned out their heist presumably with the goal to mitigate potential harm to bystanders and bank employees if for no other reason than to increase their perceived chances of not being eventually captured by the authorities.

This is just semantics. Everything we do can be said to be a result of our circumstances, they don’t apply equally here.

I just don’t get it. Do you really live your life never thinking that you know someone else’s intent? Do you not question when someone acts uncharacteristically nice to you and try to figure it out? If someone asks to borrow something from you, do you not consider whether you think they plan to give it back? Do you trust anyone in your life? If so, what is trust if not a high degree of confidence that someone else has good intentions? This is as basic as human interaction gets. It’s nearly impossible for you to have any working relationship with another human being if you don’t.

The fact that some people lose their appetite is irrelevant. My wife does this to me all the time, she asks me to heat something up for her and then she ends up not eating it. But so what? It is still clear that she intended to eat it when she asked for it.

It is one you accept, I accept, everybody excepts

On the contrary, you accept subjective morality (whatever that is) and I accept objective morality so you and I are not the same.

Some individuals have "more" "caring/cooperation" instinct and some individuals have "less".

Or none at all.

Well I'll tell you something. You can't say it is right to have a goal without a [specific and explicit] goal you are referencing.

Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.

Can we also agree that our care for others is the basis of all concepts of morality?

No, we can agree its the subjective morality of humans, it is a subjective goals.

Actually, the evidence ( or the interpretation of the evidence has been presented  in this forum numerous times,

You state what you feel and people can trust you or they don't. If they trust you it still doesn't mean they think  you are right about the emotions you are feeling.

The first part of the book addresses the relationship between God and the universe. Spinoza was engaging with a Tradition that held: God exists outside of the universe; God created the universe for a reason; and God could have created a different universe according to his will. Spinoza denies each point. According to Spinoza, God is the natural world. Spinoza concludes the following: God is the substance comprising the universe, with God existing in itself, not somehow outside of the universe; and the universe exists as it does from necessity, not because of a divine theological reason or will.

That is like saying cause you have a child you should get to abuse them or kill them. A benevolent creator would work in a moral arena within natural law.  If your gods view you as a chess piece to amuse them you have the wrong gods. 

When the creator takes someone out, it's not murder, it's just a change of location. He created us, so he can do what he wants with us.

(1) which of these hypothetical crimes is more of a danger to the public?

We don’t punish crimes, we punish the people who commit them so your question is logically fallacious. The question is; which person is more of a danger to the public.

Answer: Person A

Person B is of course a danger as he demonstrated, but the difference is that Person B committed the robbery purely as a result of the circumstances surrounding him. Had an opportunity not presented itself to him, the crime would have never been committed.

Person A however ensured that the crime was committed. The status of the guard was irrelevant to him. He would not have allowed months of planning to go to waste.

(3) are we really trying to punish people for thinking ahead and NOT being impulsive?

Yes. The fact that someone thought ahead tells us a lot about their character, which tells us allot about the level of danger one presents to society.

Person A had months to think about it and never pulled back, this shows that it was not a mistake...

...as could be argued with Person B, rather this was something that Person A demonstrated to be in alignment with his/her core values as a human being.

Again, both of these are bad. No one is saying that Person B gets off the hook. Person A might get 20 years while Person B gets 15.

The point is that they’re not the same.

I would really love to hear your response to post #50

THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.

Let’s try something simpler. If I order a pizza, and then when the pizza came I ate it, could you say with reasonable confidence that my intention for calling the pizzeria was to eat pizza for dinner?

Our "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" by their mere indisputable and logically necessary EXISTENCE motivate our sense of what humans "OUGHT" to do.

No, they necessitate that we care for others, they do not tell us what we ought to do their is a distinction, this is a category error

So, are you suggesting that even if we are alive and we want to stay alive, that DOESN'T mean that we OUGHT to be alive?

Precisely

If you aren't going around cutting other people's tables with a chain saw should I care what your table looks like or how it works if your happy with it? Other than you insisting I have the same table would it really matter if your table  is what it is. 

Except.... you can actually test for bias, you made a claim and it was demonstrably false - and you can use the same principles, PEOPLE DO IT ALL THE TIME

You can continue with your assertions and I won't bother you, but don't expect to convince other people without it.

Conservatives care about personal responsibility

BLAME THE LOWEST PERSON IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

I don't think it's necessary whenever we are discussing a single statement, and we have been discussing for posts on end, I do not feel you are being honest with your uncertainty.

"BRU7AL: ALIVE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF DESIRE AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ALIVE, THEREFORE THIS DESIRE AND ABILITY = "IS""

That does not inform whether we should or should not be alive, therefore your argument is a non-sequitur attempting to inform a moral premise

No you are arguing that we are alive, I am saying, "Yes, yes we are, however, that does not inform whether we ought to be so" 

Furthermore, I am very tired of your trolling, either get serious or that's it, I've already declared my intentions in this regard once, this is the last time I'll do so. 

THE "IS" = HUMAN SURVIVAL INSTINCT + HUMAN SOCIAL INSTINCT

Or in other words enough living humans = some moral code/social contract. I think this might still just be an is from an is. It really is a hard concept to get around. 

Wrong - you have an is and ought, from which you derive another ought.

I am saying that your current syllogism was a non-sequitur, you had to add another premise which was an ought for it to not be.

And damned if there isn't another implied ought at the end. This table won't hold any ought that come from any is. Back to the drawing board. 

Only (adult autonomous) living humans with the goal of survival survive therefore any living human (who is adult and has autonomy) is going to have this goal.

I would agree, however, the insistence on the same rebuttal - whenever I have repeatedly explained the problem with it gets frustrating. 

I rather a indulge a discussion where one's mere response is "because I said so,"

...than one where I'm compelled to read a 50+ page study, only to find out later that the source was entirely misrepresented because the person who made reference to it didn't read it carefully.

Furthermore, having discussions with those who use sources as shields ("Talk to the source") can be quite a vexing experience as well.

I rather have discussions with those who can employ their own reasoning rather than those who merely cite sources in lieu of an actual argument.

That is a non-sequitur, simple being motivated to continue living does not tell you if you should, therefore that IS would be changed to an OUGHT, otherwise, the syllogism fails.

Those are all descriptions of reality, not prescriptions - none of those are oughts - it falls within the guillotine.

That's the thing, the fact that you ought to stay alive in order for your argument to be valid is not dependent on whether or not those people are or are not alive - the point is that there is another ought, and therefore your contention does nothing to destroy the guillotine. In fact, it adheres to the guillotine, this reveals a misunderstanding or a lack of comprehension regarding moral query, not relevant rebuttals.

IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.

IF self care is worthwhile and IF some other organism contributes to caring for you THEN you ought to care for them right back as part of that self care in a much as no man (ant/zebra/african wild dog/bee) is an island.

IF whether or not some [specific individual] person(s) contribute to your care is an unknown quantity (such as all humans who engage in a modern global economy) THEN all things being equal you should care for and about them [basic human rights] to insure that care in every possible case.

This is my table. It has eight legs. Let me know if you see any problems. 

The goal is staying alive, you are assuming that premise; you ought to stay alive - again, pretty simple stuff

Then he is making a category error between the information gleaned from applying the scientific method with the goal of ascertaining objective facts about the processes of the human body and the application of those facts for the practical purpose of providing medical care or advise.

Um... yes, yes you can - and yes, yes you can predict bias. You can, in fact, here's an entire paper over the concept:

https://alphaomegaalpha.org/pharos/PDFs/2017-1-Byyny.pdf

Reliable computer-based tests have been developed tomeasure implicit and unconscious bias. The most commonly used is the IAT, which measures differential association of two target concepts—male or female, black orwhite, good or bad—and relies on differences in responselatency to reveal unconscious bias. The larger the performance difference, the stronger the unconscious bias.Between 1998 and 2006, more than 4.5 million IAT testswere completed on the IAT website. The project foundthat:• Implicit bias is pervasive.• People are often unaware of their implicit biases.• Implicit biases predict behavior.• People differ in levels of implicit bias.21The IAT is a powerful and useful instrument to exploreand document the impact of bias on behavior. It can beused to increase awareness of cognitive bias, and helpindividuals and groups to compensate and learn about influences on decision-making and social interactions. TheIAT is available online at implicit.harvard.edu. It is freeand takes about 10 minutes to complete a test.

Not to mention deduction and induction, you empirically do not know what you are talking about

they regurgitate something they've read, or make some haphazard allusion to a "source" or "logical fallacy,"

Of course they aren't, but it is mitigatable beyond impact. 

One wonders if mister Harris would agree with this statement.

you *are alive

second of all - I don't see how that rebukes my point - it doesn't. It also doesn't make you any more believable to be pedantic about things.

Oh i think it is in keeping with Hume's guillotine. It still has a baked in goal of self promotion from which we extrapolate promoting others as a part of that self care in a much as no man is an island. 

What? No... that is applying to Hume's Guillotine. 

IF you care about yourself, THEN you should care about others

(hint hint: the hidden goal is that you ought to care about yourself)

Which is a logical fallacy and falls outside of the conditions we were discussing. Humans can act without flaws in logic whenever they are aware of it, judges do it constantly.

if you care about yourself, then you ought to care about others. Its that simple.

And there it is. Beautiful, simple, the true first axiom of morality. And it only took us 35 pages of posts to get here.

In your personal opinion, what percentage of the human population has managed to manifest their conscious intention to be happy and comfortable?

This isn’t relevant. You’re talking about achieving the desired results, not acting upon their intentions.

I believe most people intend to act out their intentions.

Correction: *all* people intend to act out their intentions. That follows from the definition of intend.