Theweakeredge

A good take away there - to make a prescription is building on top of another prescription - you can add in facts to make that prescription more or less authoritative morally, but by themselves, you have to make assumptions to jump from that fact to the should.

You cannot derive an is from an ought, and you cannot derive an ought from an is

What do I mean by that?

Is - is referring to the state of reality, we live on planet Earth, writers write, jumping off of buildings is dangerous, etc, etc.. These are all descriptions of reality. They are telling us what reality is. 

Ought - is referring to the state or reality we would prefer, you should be good, you should not lie, you should help others etc, etc.. These are prescriptions of reality. They are telling you what reality should be.

To distinguish one from another is to distinguish fact from value, the fact-value difference in epistemology. 

Essentially - you cannot claim that you should do something because something is the case. Why? Well, because that would assume the goal. Or the direction of the morals, there is no link between the specific moral claim and the claim of reality except for your own subjective take. However, if you were to include another ought in there, well, perhaps I should explain in an example.

P1: Biting another person hurts

Con:  Therefore you should not bite other people

That is a non-sequitur, the conclusion does not necessarily lead from the premise, what if someone finds pain enjoyable? Therefore the accurate syllogism would be as follows:

P1: Biting another person hurts

P2:  people should avoid pain 

Con: Therefore people should not bite other people 

Do you see the difference? The second premise is something that changes the validity of the conclusion. 

While it could still be the case that some people don't avoid pain, or shouldn't avoid pain, it makes the argument a sequitur, where the conclusion follows from the premises.

But how does that lead us to morality being subjective?

Simply put, that second premise simply cannot be based on a fact of reality, there is no link, and the conclusion can also not be based on a fact of reality, at every level there is a preference, or a goal inserted to make the syllogism valid. It is literally impossible for a moral ought to be based on entirely factual things, there has to be a prescription of which facts are preferrable and which aren't. This is the subjective nature of morality.

This is essentially begging the question, what "cognition"? The only cognition is that of humans, otherwise, something simply is because of natural laws, you are assuming there to be cognition. 

@Tarik

No see that isn't preferable - IF something can be good, and we ought to do good, THEN the goal is to be good

That is not preferable - that is how moral systems work - if you remove the goal then there is way to distinguish whether you ought to good or bad, which is the entire point of morality. I don't think you quite understand what morality is.

I'm surprised I haven't received more pushback here.

@Tarik

I'll keep this simple - as you going off-topic is abound - you cannot derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is. This is due to morality having implicit goals, they are subtexts, but always present. If something can be good, that means something is preferable, IF you ought to be good, THEN the goal is to be good. That is my proof of the assertion, it is intrinsically the case. Please answer this directly, instead of dancing around it. 

See, when I blocked you I didn't say anything else, but your apparent need to have the last laugh is apparent here.

Any one claim regarding BLM's intentions is a generalization. Have fun with that.

@Tarik

I have literally linked a definition of both, you keep running around in circles "Subjective morality doesn't exist.." but they do... I use subjective morality, therefore it exists, even if objective morality did exist that would not mean that subjective morality doesn't exist. On the other hand, morality is intrinsically subjective, which you haven't brought up a valid objection to.... I literally explained why goals are inherent to morals, and are therefore subjective. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but a red herring is whenever you bring up a nonrelevant point to try to distract the point... which you've done... several times. Perhaps unintentionally, but there nonetheless. Furthermore I can block you whenever I wish, you don't really have power over whether I do or not. 

IF you don't understand something which multiple people have spelt out for you and you have run in circles trying to justify your objection, THEN I see no need to continue talking to you.

Especially your tendency to copy specific phrases to attempt to mock me. So. Answer my actual point, or I'll block you again. That simple.

Ohh I see, how interesting, you've blocked me this time. Well, that saves me time.

I barely have the time to do regular debates anymore, sorry. 

I was highlighting your false dichotomy. Either answer a question and objection straight or this will end. You have one more chance buddy. This time there won't be a unban. You've used so many different red herrings and fallacies that I don't think you want to change your mind, you want to be right and will not stop until I agree with you. If you used something more than fallacies perhaps people would.

Moral "command" this is how systems work inherently - please come up with a moral command which does not have a goal - a goal is what the moral wants to achieve, the end result

Its the "why" of a moral, this is not a claim, but an intrinsic nature of how morality works.

Goals are not "moral" - you seem to not understand my arguments. Morals or morality all have goals inherently - because moral statements are "oughts" not "is". Every moral command uses a goal, which is subjective, therefore morality cannot be objective. Very simple. Furthermore your dichotomy was: God or Nihilism, in otherwords, objective or subjective morality. Its called looking for subtext. Don't play games with me.

I see no reason to use it over just "if", eh,  also I just think it looks stupid, my opinion though - although more importantly here, it would make the previous syllogism a non-sequitur (if it wasn't already one, then more of one)

If is spelt with one f not two.

No... you seem to not understand how this works - you cannot derive an ought from an is, period, oughts are always subjective. Next, no, you simply cannot have objective morality. Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism, but I already explained that, so I won't do it again, you not understanding how basic logic works is why you can't convince anybody on this. From false dichtomies you dont adress, to not knowing what an appeal to emotion is.... or do you still think the word well-being makes subjective morality "an appeal to emotion"

Yes - correct - as well as using some of that (in lots of cases) millions of extra dolllars to help improve what actually has been demosntrated to decrease crime: equal oppurtunity to education, and equity in neighborhoods and house holds. 

I said, not necessarily, and not all at once - eventually I don't think there should be any police force - or at least nothing that resembles the current police force.

I have counter sources, specifically that there is a correlation between a decrease in crime and a decrease in police officer per 1000 citizens - so I'm not sure if thats exactly valid. Furthermore, "defunding" is not the same as abolishing, at least not all at once, and it would certainly not be without its replacement. 

False Dichotomy, and you haven't addressed the main part of the current argument.

Are you going to seriously examine your position? Because Bru7al and I have practically spelt it out for you

No. wanting to go to heaven is a goal which is subjective, even if heaven existed, not everyone would want to go - you have yet to prove that god exists in the first place, so your running ahead on two fronts, again, personal increduality does not excuse your faulty logic here.

Ought - Ought

Ought x is

is x ought

is - is

Ought is - Ought

Ought is x is

The goal is a part of the syllogism, otherwise that syllogism isn't a sequitur

It is neither a fact - it is a perspective of human minds - subjective.

Because colloqualism 

Nope, that is a subjective goal - you have assumptions which make you think of them as objective - your presonal increduality is not a justification for you not accepting subjective morality.

Objective morality means that the laws of morals are true indepedent of anything else, they are like the laws of gravity and the like - however - within any moral argument oughts or in this case, the goals, are subjective - because goals are intrinsinically subjective, that means that any morals or anything telling you what you ought to do cannot be objective.

Because your presented argument:

P1: God tells us we ought not murder

Con: Therefore we ought not to murder

Is a non-sequitur, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, because there is another premise that is hidden in there, that you ignored, as I already explained this

P1: God tells us we ought not murder

P2: We ought to listen to god

Con: Therefore we ought not to murder

perhaps your confused because the word "ought" is in the first premise. Please read your own lines carefully and employ comprehension while doing so - it is describing an alleged fact of reality - that god's rules say not to murder - that is not an ought that is an is - a description of reality (allegedly). 

Any is - you cannot get an prescription of reality from a description of reality. 

Wrong - here's the hidden assumption and the ought - You ought to value god's teachings/decisions/ whatever you wanna call them. That is still an ought, you cannot get an ought from an is. 

You do realize that that's the same as saying, "ah, the red herring, first noticed by this guy, therefore this is an appeal to authority." This isn't me saying that because Hume said it its true, I'm saying, it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, not without another ought, a goal - a subjective one. Again that's what i'm talking about. Next, you are being absolutely pedantic, so first you claim to not know then you bring up that? That means you are being purposely semantic. Either answer the criticism or this conversation ends. Again. I though maybe you might actually try to be intellectually honest for once. Turns out I was wrong.

In general you cannot get a moral claim from objective descriptions of reality - hume's guillotine. 

Furthermore - I have clarified this several times - objective as in something which is true independent of the mind - subjective something which is dependent on the mind for truth. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and this is even further emphasized by your continuous coping of my words to try to mock me, have fun being uncreative, how about a response that isn't, "I don't understand the thing you've clarified 30 times over"

There is - there is a difference between subjective and objective truth. Therefore there is a difference between objective and subjective proof. Your stubbornness to accept it doesn't change the fact.

Again.

You cannot get an ought from an is.

Yes - proof which is true dependent on the mind. Again, your inability to grasp this is staggering.

The bible says to accept Jesus as your lord and savior and repent and then you go to heaven, anything else is your own faulty interpretation. Have fun being self-rigtheous.

It says.. in the bible if you repent, as in, accept Jesus as your lord and savior and that you have sinned, then you go to heaven. Its that simple. As long as its geniune. I don't think that just - repentance is not worth the same morally as someone's bodily autonomy, whether that abuse of bodily autonoomy be rape, murder, etc.

How about this - I concede all of the former argument and I only put in this argument

You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is

No - you are saying something is true  - you have this assumption that that means its objectively true - it could also mean its true to you (subjectively) it could also mean your confident something is true, it could mean that you're wrong, you are being needlessly limiting.

Incorrect - Im saying whenever you claim a moral claim to be objectively true you are wrong, because morals cannot be objectively true. 

Why would you state something as a fact if it wasn't? Because you're wrong.... its that simple. 

The greatest scientists affirmed that the earth was in the center of the universe before 1543

The greatest scientists affirmed that the earth was flat before the 3rd century

You can affirm something and be wrong - or - ever better yet - it can be true to you.

I.e subjective.

That is still a subjective goal... you want to go to heaven. Subjective. Because all goals are subjective.

Furthermore, this is all a tu quoque, let's say you're right and I was completely wrong - wouldn't change the fact that this syllogism is neither valid nor sound.

Im saying that morality and the principles used to affirm it are propositional and from the mind, therefore morality is not objective - consider it this - you cannot get an is from an ought - any sense of morality is fundamentally based on a goal - therefore it is subjective. Simple ethics.

So then you have a choice, either principles used in morals are propositions, or they are fundamental truths 

IF it is the former THEN you would have to demonstrate those propositions, IF it were the latter THEN you would have to demonstrate the principles true

Either way - the definition works.

I actually did... In fact the definition was linked, you can go check; better yet - here's the one I used.

"A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."

You and Wagyu you both have so much trouble with such a simple concept.

Secondly, do you even know what valid and sound mean in regards to a syllogism? Because you certainly don't understand what fallacies are.

What? That isn't in my syllogism, that is part of a definition of a word in my syllogism - which I demonstrated as true by linking to a dictionary that showed that definition. Do you have short term memory?

Would more training be sufficient to fix the many flaws with the police department? 

In other words, your syllogism is neither valid nor sound.