I think you just withdrew because you can't face the fact that you were defending something nonsensical. You were all eager to explain to me what "uncaused" means, but when I nailed you you just elegantly withdrew. Well, that's not nice.

Be a man and defend what you stand for, by explaining in terms that can be understood, what the dickens you and InPotzl actually meant. Your withdrawal means you can't explain. Because what InPotzl said is nonsense.

Thank you for wasting my time.

You said you'd give me a shorter, simpler explanation. Then almost immediately you went into "You said, he said, InPotzl said, I say, T, A..." this is referencing a whole bunch of stuff. I have no inclination, time, patience and interest in going back to read the entire thread to hunt for these references.

This is not simple. At all. And not because of the thought's complexity -- you are explaining it in its chronological development, while a SIMPLE explanation of how an uncausation (?Is this a word? I don't want to start another argument, for crying out loud) can be partial is what I wish to see.

That's all I need. Someone said, something to the effect, "Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities." To which InPotzl replied: "We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused."

This is what you could explain to me. Not that uncausing is not a word. That's fine, you win there. But please explain how something can be partially uncaused. (Not a verb, but an adjective.)

The simpler the explanation, the better. No references. Just the straight goods. No A's and T's and X's. Just real life examples. Exactly what InPotzl actually meant.

Thanks.

There, you could do me a service and to InPontl too, if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. Since you so eloquently explained that the un prefix is not a negation, but a reapplication of an action in reverse.

No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory. — Pfhorrest

Secular-wise, yes. Christianwise, god's supreme. Its earthly governors are kings, who are to preside over a territory. The moral of the story in Christian mythology is to obey the ruler, that's the whole point of the exercise. "All authority derives from god", therefore the subjects are morally obligated (obligato) to serve the king to the best of their abilities.

What would it take to reduce the work week? — schopenhauer1

Paying the workers weakly, not weekly.

What would it take to reduce the work week? — schopenhauer1

Weak workers. You can't work the weak to work hard.

I think, OP, that it's a mirage of the inborn need of notion of fair share, with the subjective feeling of being gifted. If you are gifted, you feel you need to gift others. If you are rich, you feel the need to give alms. If you are beautiful, you feel the need to become a film star. If you are powerfully strong (historically) you felt the need to be a hero of defending your city state, or something. If you were a god, you felt the need to redeem the great unwashed.

Being gifted compels you to feel guilty about being gifted, and you want to compensate. Being intelligent is just one way of being gifted.

Your final QED remains undone. Your unerring website, as correct as it is at explaining most instances of the UN prefix with verbs, has, I am afraid, erred this time. Uncaused: caused then undoing the causing? Are you sure of that? My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. There is no partly "not causing".

If you are erring, then unerring is not undoing the erring. If you cause something, then uncausing is not undoing the causing. It is, instead,

The whole thing is a huge red unherring.

Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) It is a neologism by me.

What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, understanding and reading-writing in English at the native speaker's level. Well, you are no language pathologist, either.

I guess the ethic is: as long as somebody is shooting somebody. — Kenosha Kid

I saw once a movie on the recommendation of a female librarian. It was titled "Shoot 'Em Up". I laughed through the whole movie. It appeared that there was no motivation, no plot, no nothing, just senseless shooting up of people into piles. The scene was in America.

Then I watched the same movie the second time. It appeared that there was, after all, a plot; it was not as funny as it was during the first viewing; it was not funny in any way.

"Art lies in the eye of the beholder."

Sorry, but....BEFORE??? In what sense do you mean this? — Constance

In the sense of the OP. It started with "in the beginning there was the word."

Percentage = 0. Right? — T Clark

Right.

I think no matter whether thoughts are linear, crooked or circular, the actions of a person are always in response to the environment. When someone comes up with a wholly original thought, it is still connected to prior knowledge and experience.

Therefore our actions are directed by our conscious or sub-conscious conclusions what me must do.

If will is defined as "thought that results in an action" (for the same of the argument that this thread is evolving toward) then our will is based on our past learning and on innate intuition and on our subsequent interpretation of these.

Which part of these are part of free will?

The prior experience is usually not self-instigated, although some of them are (such as declaring your love for an aspiring sexual partner.) Intuition is DNA driven, mostly, and some are mixed with observations that we don't raise to the conscious level. The third component is the analysis of past experiences and of analytical thoughts that one must arrange and make sense of.

The third component also is influenced by the same two effectuation: by prior experience and by DNA driven behaviour.

So in conclusion there is no chance for any of these components to be random.

Exceptions exist in mentally diseased people.

I saw a nice self-referencing puzzle the other day.
Question: If you pick an answer at random, what are the chances that the percentage written in the pick is equal to the chance of picking that percentage?
There were four answers given from which you could pick at random. One said 50%. One said 25%. One said 60%. And another one said 25%. Altogether there were four answers from which a random choice would be made.

We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. — InPitzotl

You're right, "uncausing" was not used by InPitzotl. I stand corrected.

But in his explanation to me what he meant by "uncaused" he did not explain it. Sorry.

I took offence actually when you questioned my proficiency in English. If you can't tell who speaks and writes English correctly, then maybe the problem is not with my English.

Yes. I can expect another barrage of condescending explanation from you telling me the difference between "proficiency in English", "correct English" and "understanding nuances in English". I expect you wish to tell me that "proficiency in English" is a typical word used for gradations of English knowledge in non-native speakers of English. Please do and then I'll never speak to you again.

I don't know why people stoop so low on this site and resort to insult others here by pre-judging the others' abilities and ranking them low in a type of skill in which they certainly do not lack.

Let me be condescending now to you for a second, pointing out some peculiarities of the English language that may have passed you by. Not in order to insult you, but just to make you see how it feels.

InPotzli wrote,
We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused.

Normally, "be uncaused" to me means, not being the object of a causational effect. It can be semantically exchanged to "not be caused".

An event is affected by one or more causes. Let's say we call the resulting common drive of all these causes "a cause" just to stay consistent with InProtzli's claim. We can sum then all events that do not cause the event at hand a singular non-causing force, consisting of many unrelated events. How can that be only partially not effecting? If it starts to affect the event, then the affecting cause that is new and no longer in the set of unaffecting events, and is now the part of the set of events that cause the event, i.e. have an effect on the event. The sum of all events and forces and causes that do not act at all on an object to bring about an event of the object, can't be called, in their entirety, "partly unaffecting".

----------

For the other part: you accused me, and rightfully found me guilty of using "uncausing" as a quote by InPortzli. What you considered a mistake was that I had taken the liberty and I EXTRAPOLATED the lingual use of "be uncaused". "Be uncaused" is in the passive mode of the verb. All passive modes can be put into a direct mode, by changing the object noun with the subject noun. "The racket hit the ball" is the direct mode, "the ball was hit by the racket" is the passive mode. In the former, the racket is the subject of the sentence, the ball is the object. In the second example. the ball is the subject, and the predicate is using the passive mode.

I don't know if you mistook my using "uncausing" as an error in grammar, which would be, in your mind imagined, used by me as fully interchangable with "uncaused". You were probably vaguely thinking of "I am interesting in buying this car" in which sentence used by many immigrants they mix up the past participle with the present participle. I am sorry, but if this is what indicated to you that I was incapable in English, then you in fact insulted me.

When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, which subject has no effect on the event at hand. "Many events are uncausing the event at hand (i.e. have no effect on it), while some other events are causing the event at hand to happen."

I cry foul. — InPitzotl

So do I. You can't deny you wrote this:

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

So explain what you mean by that, with special emphasis on the "be uncaused".

I did not want to continue this because it is tiresome to argue with you. But if you insist we go on, and you challenge me, I will not bend or break. Only under the weight of reason do I bend or break. But your statements have not shown anything but a bunch of self-contradictory claims.

In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. But you did not. It was an entirely wasted effort. You put out words and you expect to be understood even when you say essentially nothing.

So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.

By contrast, we can have things such as the 217Pb atom I keep mentioning here, that during a particular 20 second period (span 1) does not decay, but during another (span 2) decays into a 217Bi atom. If we explore the cause of the existence of the 217Bi atom, that has an explanation; there's a prior 217Pb atom... and 217Pb's are known to decay into 217Bi's with a half life of about 20 seconds. So we can call this a cause. But it is not a sufficient cause, as proven by span 1. Not all 217Pb's decay into 217Bi's in a 20 second time span; about 50% of them do. But there need be no set of causes that collectively are sufficient to explain this decay; there need be no answer to the question of why the atom decayed in span 2 as opposed to not decaying in span 1.

This isn't a situation of some other "event" "uncausing" the decay, whatever (if anything) that might mean. It's a situation of there being no other event that causally explains it. It's a situation where there are causal priors, but collectively they are insufficient to explain the event (i.e., were all causes present, the event would not always happen). — InPitzotl

This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". Yet it did not. You can't do that to your audience.

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically before the discussion between you and me. You now deny that it means anything. That's another thing you can't do in normal discussion, let alone in a discussion where reason is trump.

ince all things in the universe are contingent, it is necessary to posit a necessary being as their cause; even if such a being is not imaginable to us since we have never perceived such a thing. — Samuel Lacrampe

The original question, as I understood it, what being created things before there were beings. Your answer, Samuel Lacrampe, includes a being that we can't probably imagine; but you called it a being. Now what was creating that being before it existed? if in the beginning there were no beings.

Remember only one thing, and keep it in mind when you answer or add to this topic: WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE BEING THAT CREATED THE BEING. You MUST assume there were no beings at first.

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying.
— god must be atheist
I did no such thing. — InPitzotl

By saying that you did no such thing, you meant that you did not know what you were saying? You are negating your own action, but since I used two of your actions, and you did not reference which specific one we must apply your negation to, we are at liberty to apply it to either. Precision is lacking.

I am yanking your chain, of course, I am only joking. But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. You can't lead your audience astray, because then they will turn on you and bite you.

Even after several explanations I can't comprehend what you mean by uncausing. I let it be, please don't worry about it. You've given it your best shot, and I still stayed stupid and ignorant in comprehending it. I am a lost cause as far as uncausation is concerned, so please don't take it on your self to explain it yet a third time.

Can you illustrate what you mean by an example? — InPitzotl

I was just repeating what I gleaned from your earlier posts in conversation with others.

And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl

I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying. Now you say that my saying "uncaused" has no meaning.

I can live with that. This is a nice example of uncaused reasoning caused by uncaused ununderstanding.

I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). — InPitzotl

This still does not negate that "caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities".

Please consider this:
1. An event is caused.
2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events.
4. Therefore the event has been in its totality caused and uncaused (by distinct and discretely separate events or causes) and there is nothing in its post-caused behaviour therefore that is not caused and not uncaused.

What gives life value is the cost of living.

If god asked me if I wanted to never have been born, i.e. never have been existed, or else live a life, I would reply: What do you recommend? He is the know-it-all, his advice would no doubt be superior to my speculated answer.

Hadn't though of it that way. — TheMadFool

:wink: :smile:

Thank you for your in-depth criticism.

"..supposedly makes the actor feel good and happy.", "one that most people approve of", "is a heroic act" etc. etc. are all examples which later I, myself, debunked, much resembling your claims. I put to you that you missed the point of my paper because you did not finish following the logical buildup of the claim I made.

You rejected my thesis on examples that were mistaken by you as examples of my beliefs and supporting reasons for my later points, but in fact their support was merely that they were false and unsupportable claims of what makes an act moral.

Strangely and in a funny way, you agreed with me, inasmuch as the examples you rejected were rejected by me too. Your mistake was to not see that.

If you had only read and reflected on the paragraph that preceded the list you quoted from, the above would have been clear to you. Instead, I believe and it appears that you superficially neglected to do an in-depth reading, you skimmed my paper, skipped integrally important parts of it, important in the sense that they served to show a point, and then you made judgments on the merits of my paper based on completely irrelevant reasons.

The approach of giving rewards to good action is not efficient in my opinion, because it externalizes that sense of fulfillment when we do something good and replaces it with mere pleasure, giving the false impression that good people have some significant amount of "success", which ends up discouraging people when they realize that being good does not necessarily imply success. — Hello Human

Totally agree. The moral conduct of a person is rewarded and punished from within the person's own self. If the reward or punishment comes from the outside, it is not a moral evaluation of the person's deed. It may be a reinforcing factor, and it may be even a building step of the person's morality, but the true reward and the true punishment of a moral (or immoral) act is given from the inside of the person.

Dear Philosophim, thanks, thanks, thanks, for doing a more in-depth analysis of my paper.

I took note of your needing more rigid definitions for my newfound ideas, and more examples to support the definitions. thanks.

I also thank you for pointing out that marital fidelity does not always draw the same reaction.

Where I can play a safe defense of my treatise is on this of your points:

The far-reaching effect is our logical ability to reject the theories attempted to be built by all previous moral philosophers to date, up to, but not including, moral system theories by evolutionary theorists. — god must be atheist

That's a neat claim, but why? I didn't really get that from your paper. — Philosophim

A little farther reading into the paragraph from where you and I quoted would have satisfied your request, I believe. Please consider the following as to "why" on the neat claim.

attempted the impossible to create an in and by itself complete and singular ethical system, because they had not realized the dual nature of morality, and more importantly, they were therefore blind to realize the different requirements for the two systems. Since the two systems are now viewed, as per my treatise here, as similar but with also some nonequivalent elements or features of operation, obviously and in a logical way, not one system of philosophy can be found that applies to both equally. Hence, moral questions will never be subjected to a single, all-encompassing evaluation (and repair) system, since the amorphous nature of the acquired moral codes and the rigid system of the autonomous moral codes make that wholly impossible. — god must be atheist

Again, and I can't emphasize this strong enough, I am grateful for your meaningful and valuable contribution in criticizing my treatise. Thank you.

. If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists — Philosophim

This would only stand up if you proved that such an X actually exists. This is a condition you set up which is not shown or proven to be true.

Conspiracy theories are like wanton, unabashed, gratuitous violence in a movie with no plot, which describes now all and every show, movie and tv series on Netflix. The theory goes that people who suspect conspiracies are hungry for more blood-thirsty news, and their hunger is not satisfied. There are enough blood-and-gore news, but they do not penetrate the sympathy of conspiracy theory believers. It's a little like you can give tons of insulin to the diabetic type 2, but if he gets no metformin, little if any of the insulin will help the sugars walk through the cell walls.

Similarly, the conspiracy-believer wants more scandal, blood, vengeance and revenge, because his or her receptor to vengeance, blood and gore is dulled or jaded.

Animals have rights. But only American animals. It's in the Charter of Animal Rights in the Canadian Constitution. If the right of an animal gets violated, the animal can take the offender to court. Supreme court, if the offence is of criminal nature, and civil court, if the offence is of tort law or contract law.

The reason we don't hear much about cases of animal rights violations in courts, is that animals can't afford lawyers. Mostly their only liquid asset is their pelt or hyde, and that is an unmitigable possession of the animal.

"Death is something that happens to other people, but not to me." - Character, in one of Terry Pratchett's novels.
"Death is nature's way to tell you to slow down." - Mother Nature.

"The main effect of death on the living is the speculative ramifications disseminated by religious and or secular doctrines." - Adolph Stulpnagel von Dressau.

"We don't want to live forever. Immortality is a veritable nightmare. We just don't want to die." -- Robert K. Steiffenhauser von Kielkebaden.

"In my youth I wished for infinite knowledge, wisdom and intelligence upon my death. Now I wish for ignorant stupidity." Herr hochwohlgeborener Baron Kreffke Max Stillstoffen von Wartburgh.

"If the Tower of Babel was unfinished due to society reaching the sky, then man's life is unfinished to stop him from reaching... very high. Higher than he can bear." Fraulein gegenwegerstrecklich Hanna Zwickreckstuck von Bieberheim.

"Man can't get higher than a bear? This has been debunked by Jimi Hendrix." Herr Obersturmstrassenwagenkonduktor Holz Heindrich von Gestraub.

"Death is..." (Unfinished due to exitus lethalis) Der schweigensteiger briefmarksammler Gottlieb Drucke von Eckhardt on his deathbed.

↪Banno Science consists in empirical observations, hypotheses and theories. Empirical observations are either true or false, hypotheses and theories are testable.

Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science. — Janus

Precisely what I said, and you said it more succinctly and clearly. I think I said that philosophy does use empirical observations, but the interpretations it draws from observations is not meant to be tested, or is in a form that defies testing (because the particular philosopher does not know how to design a test). Case in point is my theory on ethics; so far many (or some) criticized it for its English, for using examples the critics did not like, for not saying what the critic had been thinking some time before the reading. But nobody has actually given it a critical reading and any valid criticism. The theory is described in two places on this forum, one short form, one long form.

The short form can be found here (I published it in response to criticism that the long form was too long):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

And the long form, here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

This is poorly written and one sentence doesn’t even make sense (italics). — I like sushi

You probably object to my having "morality and ethics" as the subject of the clause, while then later I refer to them as "it".

There is a reason for it. In some schools of philosophy, morality and ethics are equivalent to each other. I accept that view. Unless a writer differentiates what meaning he attaches to morality that is different from the meaning he attaches to ethics, the two words are synonyms. Therefore there is a singular idea, paraphrased as "morality" and as "ethics", but it is one and the same thing.

I appreciate that it does hurt the eye to read two words of which one is in plural, to be referred to as a singular subject, but I needed to sacrifice either the concept, or else proper English syntax. You're right, the sentence needs to be re-written.

I noticed how your criticism restricted itself to my writing style and did not expand to criticize the content.

Thanks.

That's not completely on point is it? — TheMadFool

Hm. So it isn't.

I can't seem to parse this sentence. What do you mean "faith in god is unassailable by logic"? In my book it means "faith in god" is illogical and that's why it is, in your words, "unassailable by logic"! — TheMadFool

There are two ways to be not logical: 1. By committing a logical error, for instance, saying that the cat is both alive and dead in the box. (Contradicting the law of excluded middle). This is illogical. 2. By not explaining by logic. "My cancer went into remission because of an act of god." Here, there is no logical error; it is not illogical to say this, while it at the same time is most likely not true.

The idea is that logic is a formal system, that can be violated or not. Some things that are not true are not violating logic. However, they may be outside of logic; not dependent on logic; not being a function of logic. Such is the faith in god. You can't logically argue that there is no god. (Much like you can't logically argue that there is god.) It's all in the set of basic assumption, and this assumption can't be shown to be true or else false. It is a question of belief, of faith.

I hope to have clarified my position to your understanding.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God?
— Shawn

Something unscientific and illogical about God perhaps. — TheMadFool

Not illogical. The faith in god is unassailable by logic.

But unscientific, yes. Science is based on evidence. There is no empirical evidence of god. If you are a faith-bearer, yes, even the grass and the stars and the orgasms in this world can be evidence of God. Actually, not to all faithful, but to some. But if you have no faith in god, then there is no evidence. And to a lot of god-fearing people, even orgasms and grass and stars are not evidence to the existence of a god.

Tom, I am not going to rewrite the page because you object to the example. The example is clear and to the point.

If you have an obvious or not-so obvious but still relevant criticism on my paper, I would like to hear about that. But I am not going to be let myself be bugged down on immaterial details on people objecting to the specific examples I use. It is the mechanics of Good and Bad that I wanted to illuminate, and the example served that. It was not messy for the purpose. You called it messy, but it is not.

So please comment on the ideas I have in my paper, not on immaterial peripheral trivia that has no bearing on my argument there.

Why get into this messy material as an example for your rather uncomplicated idea? — Tom Storm

Islamist terrorists are another good idea. American aggression abroad is another. Ideas abound. Why pick on the one I picked and blame me for picking it? Is it a worse scenario to explain my point than the Wahhabi Islamisists? Why actually do you do this?

What you are doing is not arguing on a philosophical level. "Do this, don't do that", is what you are saying, while "that" and "this" are equivalent in educational value. So do you have a personal exception against the moral dilemma the Nazi values represent? Why? It is not philosophy you talk.

I have a strong feeling that it is a personal agenda you are speaking from. I mean, I can' t be sure, but why else would you be bugging me to change the example?

Y’all are struggling with complexity here!

GOOD: That which decreases pain and suffering (which we all inately recognize pain in others from instinct), both in magnitude and numbers (number of individuals).

EVIL: Vice versus.

Ex: Catholic no birth control policy - increases poverty (suffering) and decreases the value of each individual. EVIL

Now that wasn’t so hard was it? — Trey

So good is moral? I contest that, with the argument that 1. if they were equivalent, (and you use straight equivalency to explain the other with substituting the first into its place) there would be no two words for them; and 2. if all good is moral, and all bad is evil or immoral, then ambivalences can't be called moral or immoral, while our innate recognition of the act for us as being moral or the opposite is immediately obvious. Example: Antisemitism by Naziism. Nazis believed that the evil in the world stemmed from the Jewish ambition of world hegemony, and that Jews were innately evil people. This was obvious and innately accepted by them. On the other hand, the rest of the world thought the German Nazis to be innately evil for adopting this and making it policy to exterminate all Jews to make this a better world.

Obviously to a Nazi, killing Jews was innately moral. To a non-Nazi, killing Jews for this belief is innately immoral. The same act. Good and Bad. Moral and Evil. This is the "aye, there is the rub" I referred to, and your simplification of the problem, Trey, does not solve the problem at all.

Whereas my showing a perspective how to view the problem does make the apparent self-contradiction go away.

What you, as the readers, I ask to realize, is that my theory is not a guidance or a fail-proof prescription of behaviour; it is instead a failproof prescription how to evaluate moral behaviour. I am not telling people what is moral and how they should behave; I am telling people how morality can be assigned, why, and how that is possible.

You have to qualify now what those goals should or must be. And ay, there is the rub. That is precisely what the debate has been for thousands of years, with no end in sight.
— god must be atheist
It's not qualifiying what the goals should be, but whether any goal has a moral property of good or bad (goals are more than just being good or bad) in some sense independent of the person, or group, with the goal in question. Enslaving mankind and freeing mankind are different goals. Whether they are good or bad is something different, and is seems to always depend on the person's, or group's, other goals. — Harry Hindu

What you said is the same as what you have quoted from me. And that is precisely what my theory claissifies so, that it ("it" being the vexing contradictory evaluation of the same act) can be made compatible with a moral theory.

An example of a theory in philosophy that contains the elements of philosophy as describe by me, is the theory on morality I have proposed and nobody has tried to debunk it. At least not successfully to this day. The theory rests on scientific findings, and it introduces new intuitive ways of looking at the topic, but it does not try to make it stand by failing to falsify it. The theory has a short and a long description, and I urge you people to please read it in earnest, and make comments on it. At the same time you'll see that the theory I created serves as a working example to my theory on what differentiates science from philosophy.

The theories can be found here (short form)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

And here (long form)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach