How do you know murder is wrong?

[Peter]

Brant wrote: . . . The instruments--mind implements--told me to do the opposite. My mind was in a titanic battle with my body and was losing when the instructor took over and said LOOK at those instruments; we were on the verge of stalling out and going into a spin. Then we did it again and I did much, much better. end quote

A good story and well said. A human cannot fly a plane or perform a moral action unless there is free will. That is built into the concept.

Stephen Boydstun wrote in 2009: I should object to the idea that A=A posits an existent relationship where A does not exist. The identities of things that do not exist are wholly parasitic on the identities of existents, and the guide A=A is only a guide to bring one or keep one among the latter.

Ba’al wrote: Rights are a human artifact. Which means they are man made and not "natural"

Name something that is part of the cosmos and not natural. For example antimatter, the opposite of matter is natural. What if a fifth or sixth dimension never existed within the universe until *now* yet a sentient being, Brant, while flying a Cessna into the cloudy Twilight Zone initiates construction of those dimensions? Would those somehow be unnatural?     

If the concept *natural* is strictly defined as what occurs if sentience is not involved, you are taking a factor out of the equation, like saying one plus zero equals two. Sentience is natural and part of the universe, therefore if something is a human artifact it is natural because humans are part of the cosmos.

(joke: In logical syllogisms: inky dinky parlez vous. Even a mythical ability like ESP which has never existed in a magical sense may exist in future, augmented humans who can probe minds like mobile EKG’s. The fictional Borg character, Seven of Nine on the TV show Star Trek Voyager, possesses that ability, though other characters, like Kes continue to exhibit magical ESP.)

Peter

Stephen Boydstun wrote: From First Section of “Induction on Identity” (1990 – Objectivity V1N2)
“Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. . . . Logic is the art of noncontradicory identification” (AS 1016). I think this view is correct, fresh, and important.

“He whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principle of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken. . . . Which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect” (Metaph. 1005b8–20). There are no contradictions in reality. Contradiction is the fundamental indicator of discordance with reality. Contradiction is the fundamental fallacy of deductive inference.

Noncontradiction is the fundamental rule of valid deductive inference because identity is the fundamental law of reality. The law of identity is commonly stated as “A is A” or “a thing is itself.” An existent is itself and not something else. Then an inference that something both is a certain thing and not a certain thing is faulty. A thing cannot both be and not be a certain thing. The ground of noncontradiciton, the ground of validity in deductive inference, is the law of identity.

In moving from identity to noncontradiction, we move from “a thing is itself” to “a thing is itself and not something else.” This maneuver draws to the fore our knowledge that any thing is a certain, specific thing. A thing is something. A thing is what it is. “To exist is to be something. . . . It is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes (AS 1016). This is the law of identity come of age.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was cognizant of the intimate connection between the principle of (non)contradiction and the principle of identity. (Nicolaus of Autrecourt cognized much of the connection already in the fourteenth century; see Weinberg 1967, 9–30.) “The first of the truths of reason is the principle of contradiction or, what comes to the same thing, that of identity (Leibniz 1969, 385). By truths of reason he meant necessary propositions, and by necessary propositions he meant propositions whose contradictories cannot be true. By truth he meant correspondence of a proposition with reality, possible or actual (Leibniz 1981; see also Rescher 1979, 130–34).

Primitive truths of reason, Leibniz called identicals. Among affirmative identicals are “the equilateral rectangle is a rectangle” and “A is A” and “each thing is what it is” and “at any given time a thing is as it is.” As negative identicals, we have “what is A cannot be non-A.” There are also negative identicals that are called disparates. An example would be “warmth is not the same thing as color” (Leibniz 1981, 4.2.361–63; 1966, 306).

The principle of noncontradiction (or identity), according to Leibniz, tells us only what is possible, not what is actual. Its truth is founded in the essence of things. It is an innate truth, and it applies to ideas that are innate (such as geometrical ideas), which is to say ideas not derived from the senses, but ideas found ready in the mind. The principle of noncontradiction also applies to sensible truths, as when we say “sweet is not bitter.” The actual is among the possible, and Leibniz might admit that the principle of noncontradiction has application to sensible truths without going on to sink the principle into the bedrock of the actual.

As Leibniz saw it, truths of reason and their necessities do come from outside us “since all that we do consists in recognizing them, in spite of ourselves and in a constant manner.” To demonstrate the existence of these necessities,
“I have taken for granted that we thing(k) and that we have sensations. So there are two absolute general truths: truths that is, which tell of the actual existence of things. One is that we think; the other, that there is a great variety in our thoughts. From the former it follows that we are; from the latter, that there is something other than us, that is to say, something other than that which thinks, which is the cause of the great variety of our experiences. Now the one of these is just as incontestable and as independent as the other . . . .” (1966, 307)

In contrast to truths of reason, in Leibniz’s analysis, are truths of fact. Truths of fact are known by observation and induction, not by deduction. Their truth “is founded not in the essence (of things) but in their existence; and they are true as though by chance” (Leibniz 1963, 274). Truths of existence are contingent. Truths of existence are true. They have hypothetical and physical necessity, if not absolute and logical necessity (Mates 1986, 116–19; Ishiguro 1982; Wilson 1976). But denial of existential truths does not result in contradiction, at least not in the finite mind of man. Really? end quote

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

 

Name something that is part of the cosmos and not natural. For example antimatter, the opposite of matter is natural. What if a fifth or sixth dimension never existed within the universe until *now* yet a sentient being, Brant, while flying a Cessna into the cloudy Twilight Zone initiates construction of those dimensions? Would those somehow be unnatural?     

If humans ceased to exist,  there would exit no moral or ethical codes.   Every ethical code (of which there are several)  were made up by humans and do not follow either logically or causally from the laws of physics.  If I may put the matter metaphorically,  nature does not care how we behave. 

[Peter]

Of course, moral or ethical codes, do not exist in a Platonic sense, as floating ideals. No space ship will ever visit “The Ten Commandments” over in the Delta Quadrant of The Milky Way.    

Ba’al wrote: . . . . Every ethical code (of which there are several) were made up by humans and do not follow either logically or causally from the laws of physics. end quote

Conservation of life is embodied in virtually all animate matter (lemmings excluded) therefor I would think the actuality of *evolution* or more specifically ‘survival of the fittest’ follows logically and causally from the laws of physics. Those who do not obey nature do not survive to reproduce. Those who do not teach their young to survive do not have their essence passed on.

Ba’al wrote: If I may put the matter metaphorically, nature does not care how we behave. . end quote

Nature cares not, but within nature (all of existence) we who do care live more pleasant lives, survive and successfully propagate. That is what is foolish and evil about the “green movement,” that seeks to eliminate or make humans scarcer so that the rest of the planet will thrive. Now that intelligence has arisen within the universe, intelligence is what is most important. Unknowing life will continue to follow its instincts, though sentient beings also have an instinct for survival. (Just try and stop yourself from jumping out of the way of any run away shopping carts in the Walmart parking lot.) But we have improved on instinct. We follow our basic blueprint and understand it too. Unspoiled nature is a pretty picture, but that trickle of cooking fire smoke coming from a primitive hut added to that pretty picture.

Peter      

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If humans ceased to exist,  there would exit no moral or ethical codes.   Every ethical code (of which there are several)  were made up by humans and do not follow either logically or causally from the laws of physics.  If I may put the matter metaphorically,  nature does not care how we behave. 

Quite. Nature does not "care how we behave" or 'know' that we exist. The several ethical codes you remarked on, in fact do not, or maybe somewhat, follow logically or causally from the laws of physics, as you say. All excepting rational selfishness, a guiding code of how one 'survives' (in the widest meaning) in and with reality. Thus, it adheres to everything in existence including man's nature - yup, "logically and causally". Deontological, altruist and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics and derivatives, had as an entire rationale one's treatment of and relationship with others. That was their moralists' major concern, mainly to do with protecting men from predatory man and creating feasible communities of men. Those ethics fallaciously take "the other" as the standard of one's life, whether making use of him or being of service to him. A rational egoist perceives and approaches 'the other' and others' life, without contradiction and conflict. It's in-built, with *a rational* ethics. The simple part of what to do in a life is how one relates to and morally treats the broad 'others'. Following, we have the necessity of individual rights.

[BaalChatzaf]

21 minutes ago, anthony said:

Quite. Nature does not "care how we behave" or 'know' that we exist. The several ethical codes you remarked on, in fact do not, or maybe somewhat, follow logically or causally from the laws of physics, as you say. All excepting rational selfishness, a guiding code of how one 'survives' (in the widest meaning) in and with reality. Thus, it adheres to everything in existence including man's nature - yup, "logically and causally". Deontological, altruist and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics and derivatives, had as an entire rationale one's treatment of others. That was their moralists' major concern, mainly to do with protecting men from predatory man and creating feasible communities of men. Those ethics fallaciously take "the other" as the standard of one's life, whether making use of him or being of service to him. A rational egoist perceives and approaches 'the other' and others' life, without contradiction and conflict. It's in-built, with a rational ethics. The simple part of what to do in a life is how one relates to and morally treats the broad 'others'. Thereafter, we have individual rights.

Nothing is "built in".  At birth we know little.  Later on we learn what we learn and that is contingent on our experiences and choices.  There is no a priori basis for morality.  If there were,  there would not be as many moral codes and systems as there are.  And there is no empirically preferred code of ethics.  People we have judged to be wicked sometimes prosper.  People who we judge to be good sometimes live miserable lives and die even more miserable deaths.  If rational self interest is operationally a sounder system  why is there so little of it?  

The world over people of different cultures and languages all mange gravity pretty much the same way.  If there were in inherently better system of morality why is it not practiced.  Gravity is real  and its properties are ordained by nature.  Morality is artificial and its made up by people as they go along. There is no natural superiority to "rational self interest".  Some people get it to work out,  others fail to.  

I am disinclined  to assume  a natural superiority among the various artificialities mankind produces.  Particularly laws,  moral codes,  ethical standards.  The only requirement nature imposes on such things is logical consistency  and physical  practicality.  A moral code that requires the physically impossible has to fail.  

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Nothing is "built in". 

When you learn knowledge--it becomes "built-in". No?

So I spoke of rational selfishness, one learns it. As continuation of one's objective knowledge - the ethics is built in to the knowledge and then it becomes built in to a mind, also conceptually.

And a part - built in - is how one treats others.

Jeez.

Your argument against rational selfishness - which is how one survives, with a mind, in reality - is nonsense. This is not an ethics of categorical laws. It's hypothetical. You wanna live, you do so-and-so. You don't do, you don't live. By now you should have lifted your understanding out of the customary, traditional moralities.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

When you learn knowledge--it becomes "built-in". No?

So I spoke of rational selfishness, one learns it. As continuation of one's objective knowledge - the ethics is built in to the knowledge and then it becomes built in to a mind, also conceptually.

And a part - built in - is how one treats others.

Jeez.

Your argument against rational selfishness - which is how one survives, with a mind, in reality - is nonsense. This is not an ethics of categorical laws. It's hypothetical. You wanna live, you do so-and-so. You don't do, you don't live. By now you should have lifted your understanding out of the customary, traditional moralities.

Nay. I am all FOR rational selfishness because I found that it works for me.  I do not see rational selfishness as being a moral code true a priori or flowing from the laws of the physical universe.  I find that rational selfishness is a handy dandy strategy that suits me well.  But I would not try to sell at as an apriori true principle.  I think of rational selfishness as a social and moral  heuristic.   A handy dandy strategy like the gold rule (Jewish version) that I practice.  Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.  That also works for me just fine.

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If humans ceased to exist,  there would exit no moral or ethical codes.   Every ethical code (of which there are several)  were made up by humans and do not follow either logically or causally from the laws of physics.  If I may put the matter metaphorically,  nature does not care how we behave. 

Qua morality why do we care about the laws of physics?

But if a morality did flow from them, why not all moralities?

--Brant

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: If humans ceased to exist, there would exit no moral or ethical codes. Every ethical code (of which there are several) were made up by humans and do not follow either logically or causally from the laws of physics. If I may put the matter metaphorically, nature does not care how we behave. end quote

Do you listen to yourself, Bob? Are you saying the codes or chains of logic exist while people are alive and still expressing them, but they cease to exist when the people die? What if they are expressed in a book? Do the thoughts continue to exist as long as the book survives? Or when someone comes along and reads the book by the long dead author and rediscovers its truth?

I know you are championing science. Therefore, you a human, is championing science, and billiard ball causality though not complete determinism with sentient beings. I think the proof of knowledge and reason are proven when we see something in the universe and give it a name, definition, and prove its existence. I would like to see a further expansion of Objectivist Epistemology. Want to help, Bob?

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Qua morality why do we care about the laws of physics?

But if a morality did flow from them, why not all moralities?

--Brant

A matter of survival.  If we do not know how the world works the world will kill us.  Additionally if we know how the world works we can derive material advantages not the least of which is prosperity.  Fortunately  humans are smart enough to derive a sufficient rough picture of the world from ordinary experience. A child learns about gravitation by falling down and skinning his/her knee.  We learn basic ballistics by throwing rocks and spears.  We learn basic fluid dynamics by spear fishing in streams. Etc. Etc.  One does not need a PhD in physics to know enough about the physical (natural) state of the world to survive.  Humans have been doing it for 200,000 years before physics (the science)  was invented.

Man learned about chemical reactions that produce heat (negative enthalpy)  when he learned to tame fire.  We did not get prosperity and end slavery until we learned how to turn heat into mechanical work (the steam engine).  That did not happen until the the end of the 17 th century c.e. 

There is an element of arbitrariness in moral and ethical codes. The physical nature of the world does not completely determine morality.  Much of morality is based on habit and custom,  rather than on physical laws.   That is why there are so many moral/ethical systems  and so few basic designs for successful heavier than air  flying machine.  There are thousands of systems of morality/ethics   and law.  There are maybe six basic designs  for airplanes.   In the first case,  Man is the determining factor, in the latter case  physical nature determines matters. 

[anthony]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Nay. I am all FOR rational selfishness because I found that it works for me.  I do not see rational selfishness as being a moral code true a priori or flowing from the laws of the physical universe.

The laws of the physical universe. Problem is, I think, you don't explore naturalism, logically and consistently, at all far enough. Does a bird - and all birds ever - obey the laws of the physical universe? Or has it and the species managed to survive in defiance or contravention of physical laws, and its nature - identity? Bird flies, fish swims, plant grows, man thinks. (Individual man thinks--for himself, "flowing from" the physical law of his autonomy). When a morality is derived from nonarbitrary facts there can't be any "arbitrariness" about it.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The laws of the physical universe. Problem is, I think, you don't explore naturalism, logically and consistently, at all far enough. Does a bird - and all birds ever - obey the laws of the physical universe? Or has it and the species managed to survive in defiance or contravention of physical laws, and its nature - identity? Bird flies, fish swims, plant grows, man thinks. (Individual man thinks--for himself, "flowing from" the physical law of his autonomy). When a morality is derived from nonarbitrary facts there can't be any "arbitrariness" about it.

No real process works in contradiction of the laws of physics, assuming that the currently known laws are complete and correct.  Anything that is in the world is ultimately the result of natural forces and processes.  The cosmos is physical from top to bottom,  near and far,  great and small.

[BaalChatzaf]

...delete

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The laws of the physical universe. Problem is, I think, you don't explore naturalism, logically and consistently, at all far enough. Does a bird - and all birds ever - obey the laws of the physical universe? Or has it and the species managed to survive in defiance or contravention of physical laws, and its nature - identity? Bird flies, fish swims, plant grows, man thinks. (Individual man thinks--for himself, "flowing from" the physical law of his autonomy). When a morality is derived from nonarbitrary facts there can't be any "arbitrariness" about it.

The rules of bridge are derived from the fact there are 52 cards in a standard deck,  4 suites  and 13 ordinal rankings.  Bridge is still arbitrary and made up.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The laws of the physical universe. Problem is, I think, you don't explore naturalism, logically and consistently, at all far enough. Does a bird - and all birds ever - obey the laws of the physical universe? Or has it and the species managed to survive in defiance or contravention of physical laws, and its nature - identity? Bird flies, fish swims, plant grows, man thinks. (Individual man thinks--for himself, "flowing from" the physical law of his autonomy). When a morality is derived from nonarbitrary facts there can't be any "arbitrariness" about it.

What rules of morality and ethics  are derived from physical laws?  Do tell, please. I am all eyes and ears.

[Peter]

Bali Hai wrote: What rules of morality and ethics are derived from physical laws?  Do tell, please. I am all eyes and ears. end quote

Can you find Waldo? 

“We are an impossibility in an impossible universe.” Ray Bradbury

“The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.” Arthur C. Clarke

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.” Norman Vincent Peale

Consciousness, unlike existence, is a property: Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it “is” that state. (ITOE, 56) Just as existence is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various things that exist, so consciousness is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various states of awareness . . . . Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries. From “How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger, Pg 27 to 28

Bali Hai as sung by Bloody Mary:

Most people live on a lonely island,
Lost in the middle of a foggy sea.
Most people long for another island,
One where they know they will like to be.

Bali Ha'i may call you,
Any night, any day,
In your heart, you'll hear it call you:
"Come away...Come away."

Bali Ha'i will whisper
In the wind of the sea:
"Here am I, your special island!
Come to me, come to me!"

Your own special hopes,
Your own special dreams,
Bloom on the hillside
And shine in the streams.
If you try, you'll find me
Where the sky meets the sea.
"Here am I your special island
Come to me, Come to me."

Bali Ha'i,
Bali Ha'i,
Bali Ha'i! . . . . 

[Peter]

Years ago, Brant wrote: Let's consider Objectivism as if it were a baseball constructed of layers of material around a hard core. That core is its axiomatic principles--shared with science--which I consider non-controversial . . . end quote

 

I always thought the A is A axioms at the core of Objectivism were cool, but I wish someone could start with those basic axioms and continue on with infallible logic, in the same language of logic. Can Ba'al do it or is he just a Talmud nerd? 

Peter

[Peter]

Dennis May wrote on Atlantis before it sank ‘neath the waves: I accept the 3 primary axioms of Objectivism as long as Volition is left out of Consciousness. As George H. Smith has observed the validity of Volition hinges on both philosophical and scientific claims.  This removes it from axiom status.  I would include Causality in my list of Axioms because I don't believe a corollary status under Identity does it justice. If Volition is not axiomatic, all assumptions derived from assuming volition as a valid model become suspect.  This is the heart of one of the great debates which Objectivism must deal with. end quote

 

Hint: If A is A then A cannot be non A or negative A.

Now how would causality be expressed in the same logical fashion?

Peter  

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What rules of morality and ethics  are derived from physical laws?  Do tell, please. I am all eyes and ears.

Round and round you go, back to the start, where you (still) can't derive ought from is. Eyes and ears, but you cannot see nor hear what does not fit with your skepticism.

(from "non-arbitrary facts", I said).

[BaalChatzaf]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Round and round you go, back to the start, where you (still) can't derive ought from is. Eyes and ears, but you cannot see nor hear what does not fit with your skepticism.

(from "non-arbitrary facts", I said).

My very point.  No ought from is.  Morality/ethics are about should/should not   not about what is and what is not.  And that is why morality/ethics does not follow from natural physical laws.  Morality/ethics are made up by humans just like chess and bridge and even baseball. 

[Peter]

Doesn’t matter, doesn’t matter, doesn’t matter stay the same,

Unless a proton, or an ion, or causality, change the game?

Ba’al wrote: Morality/ethics are about should/should not not about what is and what is not. end quote

Then why are you commenting on a morality thread started by a guy calling himself Moralist? Seems odd, but it makes perfect sense if you’re seeking answers to the big questions. I still insist that life entails choice. Make the right choice you live and your genetic offspring carry on.

I am not a fan of total determinism but who, or what, created the genes to “WANT TO” carry on your line? Was it Zeus? Was it some other religion’s god? Or was it the universe or as we call it locally, “nature?” Nature impels us to “carry on” and we do. Evolution fashions a sentient being that knows it has been fashioned to survive. . . then with that knowledge we smart ones devise systems to improve our chances of survival. Hence the philosophy of Objectivism with a bit of moderate hedonism thrown in. That is the nature of the universe and a good morality will increase your time in the universe. Nature makes us do it. I would gladly, never die . . . or die when I choose.

Even if I need to take a few pills every night. Stop taking your medicine, "ugly bag of mostly water". Do crazy things "skin enclosed bag of atoms". I bet you won't. I win. Case closed.

Peter 

[anthony]

"Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces". [AR]

“For the New Intellectual.”

-----

("It is the third stage, conceptions, that makes him man".

Because conceptualization has to be 'performed by choice' - so, volitional; non-determined - it can be deduced that hard determinists tend strongly to being also anti-conceptualists.

But since the causation seems (to me) uncertain, it could be equally deduced that anti-conceptualists tend to become determinists. (What came first, the chicken or the egg?). Perhaps they develop simultaneously supportive, one of the other, in an individual mind).

-----

"The faculty of volition operates in regard to the two fundamental aspects of man’s life: consciousness and existence, i.e., his psychological action and his existential action, i.e., the formation of his own character and the course of action he pursues in the physical world". [AR]

“What Is Romanticism?”

 

[anthony]

"Because man has free will, no human choice—and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice—is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise.

Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation".

Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

My very point.  No ought from is.  Morality/ethics are about should/should not   not about what is and what is not.  And that is why morality/ethics does not follow from natural physical laws.  Morality/ethics are made up by humans just like chess and bridge and even baseball. 

"Is" is metaphysical and "ought" epistemological. But to know the first requires the second and the second requires the first. "Ought" means ought to choose a particular and "is/ought" is an integrated whole. When one says no ought from is is possible it is already there. The only question is whether it is the right ought.

One can also say that "is" is the present and "ought" is the future as in "ought to do something" when done becomes that something so then we'd have the ought/is conundrum BUT it was "is/ought/is" all along--with "ought" the epistemological meat and the "ises" the metaphysical.

Judging "ought" by the consequences.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Is" is metaphysical and "ought" epistemological. But to know the first requires the second and the second requires the first. "Ought" means ought to choose a particular and "is/ought" is an integrated whole. When one says no ought from is is possible it is already there. The only question is whether it is the right ought.

One can also say that "is" is the present and "ought" is the future as in "ought to do something" when when done becomes that something so then we'd have the ought/is conundrum BUT it was "is/ought/is" all along--with "ought" the epistemological meat and the "ises" the metaphysical.

Judging "ought" by the consequences.

--Brant

Wonderfully concise, sir. Judging "ought" by the consequences puts paid to No Nothing subjectivism, because it's bounded by that which knowably is.