You only represent yourself. — panwei

You still have no argument.

So you seem to have something like

'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.'
Fundamental Purpose = Service Target (One's Own Group) × Final State
therefore, you ought not skip eating.

??

Any discipline that deals with human action is incapable of explaining any single social phenomenon without relying on a meta-teleological postulate.
In Chinese history, hypotheses such as "human nature tends toward benefit" — which is itself a meta-teleological postulate — have been proposed repeatedly for millennia.
Contemporary economics similarly operates on the Rational Agent hypothesis, which is, in essence, also a meta-teleological postulate.
Even theories that do not explicitly set forth a meta-teleology inevitably rely on one for explanation — A Theory of Justice is a case in point.
My Axiom of Purpose is likewise a meta-teleological postulate. It shares the same fundamental attribute as all the postulates mentioned above; the only difference lies in its structure.
Therefore, you can only speak for yourself.
There is content I am willing to share on this forum, and content I am not — at least not for the time being. High-value ideas that have not been formally published in academic papers represent the culmination of years of personal work. This really should not require explanation.

This argument is clearly invalid.

Yes.

It's how you seem to have set up your argument.

Have you a valid variant?

I certainly don't argue my point in this way, but I won't explain how I did it here, so you don't need to ask.

Then my conclusion is that I've show that your argument is invalid.

As long as you're happy.

I'm not very happy with your account. But if you will not explain, so be it.

I regret that this has caused you dissatisfaction; that was never my intention. However, I must protect myself in the course of this exchange. The fact that you find it difficult to comprehend how my argument is constructed only underscores its significant value.

I personally have no complaints about you. If you feel that my attitude is bad, it must be a translation problem.

In Chinese history, hypotheses such as "human nature tends toward benefit" — which is itself a meta-teleological postulate — have been proposed repeatedly for millennia. — panwei

So you could say that within the framework of traditional Chinese views, "human nature tends toward benefit or recognition of one's group" is an axiom. That's how axioms work: there has to be a community that views it as self evident. You can't just say, "This is my axiom" and then expect others to accept that. It doesn't work that way.

Contemporary economics similarly operates on the Rational Agent hypothesis, which is, in essence, also a meta-teleological postulate. — panwei

The rational agent hypothesis is that each individual rationally works for his or her own benefit. There is no expectation that an individual will consider the welfare of the group he or she belongs to. But keep in mind that the rational agent hypothesis has been called into question in recent years because of its tendency to produce wrong results.

How is this argument, provided by @Banno different from your argument?

So you seem to have something like

'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.'
Fundamental Purpose = Service Target (One's Own Group) × Final State
therefore, you ought not skip eating.

?? — Banno

1. You can try to understand what my presupposed axiom of purpose is.

2. You can try to understand why I replied to you with this content:

Any discipline that deals with human action is incapable of explaining any single social phenomenon without relying on a meta-teleological postulate.
In Chinese history, hypotheses such as "human nature tends toward benefit" — which is itself a meta-teleological postulate — have been proposed repeatedly for millennia.
Contemporary economics similarly operates on the Rational Agent hypothesis, which is, in essence, also a meta-teleological postulate.
Even theories that do not explicitly set forth a meta-teleology inevitably rely on one for explanation — A Theory of Justice is a case in point.
My Axiom of Purpose is likewise a meta-teleological postulate. It shares the same fundamental attribute as all the postulates mentioned above; the only difference lies in its structure.
Therefore, you can only speak for yourself.
There is content I am willing to share on this forum, and content I am not — at least not for the time being. High-value ideas that have not been formally published in academic papers represent the culmination of years of personal work. This really should not require explanation.

3. You can try to understand why I replied to him with this content:

Let's clarify the logic:
Statement A: 'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.' This is a factual judgment that points to a causal relationship between an action and its outcome.
Statement B: 'You can choose not to eat and accept death.' This acknowledges the human freedom to act against this causal law.
My theory operates at the level analogous to Statement A: that is, with the fundamental purpose as the premise, certain behavioral norms are necessary conclusions. Violating them necessarily causes the social system to deviate, to some extent, from a state that is advantageous for humanity. What I demonstrate is the necessity of this causal relationship.

Yes, but the micro-moment the natural conditioning (eg, intuitions not to kill, or to nurture the offspring,cooperate with kin) gets put into reusable signs (leading ultimately to morality/law) we have displaced the natural with something ultimately fictional. So we cannot say, "I know killing is wrong because it comes from nature," nor similar assertions, for eg,, heterosexual monogamy is right/wrong, possession of property as territory, and so on.

Spitting some :fire: there, Sir.

Cheers.

It's a point that is missed in almost all the ethics hereabouts.

But the argument in this thread was particularly poor.

When we appeal to worth of any kind we have moved beyond tautological, will-based "because I said so." — Leontiskos

It demarcs a moment when there's a positive need to reflect or refresh one's thoughts at an encounter of particular sorts.

Contextually its locus of meaning is often
your position at the behest of the expressive
need vocalised by another, or on encountering
a situation for which there is a vacancy for
action.

The eloquence of 'ought' is more comfortable
when drawn into mind in a reflective repose.

If, as the good of philosophy promises, the
social progress and consolidation of thought as to
'what one ought' becomes in and of itself conscious preceding the contemplated future situation. One has become wise before the event and in choosing 'what one ought' it may have
proven the readiness for action and the most efficacy. Being present to gain valuable experience is the power of having ruminated on
'what one ought'.

Many of us do distinguish the limits and powers of the soul and in order to achieve the potency of 'what one ought' the good of philosophy requires the ability of discourse in order to expand the capacity of mind and soul.