We use logic to demonstrate impossibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

No no no no...no no no.
When we deal with vague existential claims that we have zero data to contract logical evaluations, the only way is by an objective methodology that is capable to verify any thing that exists.

No evidence of X, means no evidence of X, but no evidence of X might still be evidence of Y. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No.since we have never demonstrated Y to be possible so we can not just assume it and pretend we solved the problem.
No evidence of an x mechanism means that we don't know if we have all the facts to arrive to a reasonable conclusion.

-" You seem to be ignoring what I've reiterated numerous times, that "natural" requires a definition."
- So you really don't know the definition of natural, but you insist in declaring phenomena that you don't understand "supernatural".
In Science Natural is every process or phenomenon that manifest in reality through verified building blocks of the physical would and or their advanced properties.
When a claim states that a specific phenomenon/process is non contingent to those elements and their properties, that is a supernatural claims.

I propose we define "natural" in the common way, as "not artificial". Do you agree that artificial things must be supernatural? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, since, we as human produce artificial things, but they are not supernatura because in order for them to exist a long line of natural processes must take place first. (i.e. QM, emergence of atoms, emergence of molecules, emergence of chemical properties, emergence of biological properties and structures, emergence of mental properties, emergence of skills through training....thus production of a artificial things (i.e. jewellery).
In order for an artifact to be supernatural that would demand the existence of mind properties non contingent to the causal line described above somehow interacting in matter and producing the artifact.

A discussion of free will is philosophy. And any hypocrite who denies oneself free will is incapable of understanding reality. So until you change your attitude, it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure it is, and by the time we introduce our scientific knowledge we realize that we are not really free to make free choices.
Our biology, our peers, our given needs and circumstances limit our free will in really mundane choices.

I will suggest to you to educate yourself on Human behavior. Try the Robert Sapolsky's book "Behave" or his lectures and talks on Human behavior.
The next time you mesh up your diet or you do something that you now found it stupid ....start questioning your misconceptions.
If free will was a real thing.....marketing would NOT work.
Take care mate. I hope my definitions help your steer yourself away from magical answers like the supernatural.

Your arguments appear like saying ' in order to talk about modern historical events we need to understand how our solar system was formed."
Whatever the ultimate nature of reality is ....its irrelevant to how we can arrive to objective moral judgments.
Whether humans can perceive the ultimate nature of reality is irrelevant to objective standards we need to or any moral evaluation.

We must follow the example of Methodological Naturalism and the reasonable Acknowledge that we have to work with what is available to us. Since we can verify Empirical Regularities we can establish frameworks that can describe phenomena within the limits of our observations.

The actual statement was we don't choose what our biology "values" or strives. Why is this so difficult for you?
Do you choose to enjoy a naked flame scorching your skin? Do you value the state you are after being burned?
Do you enjoy the emotions produced by an open wound, being starved, being humiliated etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Do you really feel you have a choice on deciding one day to enjoy all the above emotions?
So all those emotions help you avoid states that do not contribute to your well being (feeling comfortable, happy, free of pain, being valued by your peers, physically healthy etc).

Listen I have to repeat the same things to every single one of you who came with those nonsensical objections. I use a pretty common usage of the term "well being". From what I see in a quick google search there are not many common usages...there is just one. All refer to health,happiness and prosperity whether we are looking things from a Physical, emotional/psychological, social, intellectual or economical aspect.

I never defined well being 'that which our biology values'. I am allergic to the term "that which".
I only pointed out the fact that its not our choice to value well being or not . ITs what our biology dictates to us.

Tautologous. If our well-being is constituted of those aspects which we are driven to maintain then it says nothing that we a biologically preconditions to seek them. You just defined them as those things we're biologically preconditioned to seek — Isaac

-...for goodness sake!!! Do you even read what you write????
-"If our well-being is constituted of those aspects which we are driven to maintain then it says nothing that we a biologically preconditions to seek them. "
Why do you post a sentence that argues with itself?????
Our biology drives our acts to maintain our well being.
i.e. We are working under the sun during summer. We are dehydrated. DO we choose whether hydrating our organism is a good thing for our well being?No, Our biology drives our emotion of thirst, which we reason in to "I need to drink water". SO our organism VALUES our well being and drives our actions to maintain it. We can agree that if it didn't we wouldn't be talking about us being well...or being in the first place. We would be dry up dead.
Now if our action purposely prevents a dehydrated individual to have access to drinking water, we undermine his well being so we are committing an immoral act.

So I will stop here in order to let this sink in. Do you understand why this isn't a tautology but it describes what our biology "values" (drives serving our well being) and how that informs what we value.(moral judgements).

It seems you really do not understand the nature of logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can not promote an argument from ignorance fallacy and accuse me for not understanding the nature of logic. Do you see the irony in that statement?

I said when we are able to determine, that it is impossible that the phenomenon could have had a "natural" cause, according to how we define "natural", then we can conclude "supernatural". I — Metaphysician Undercover

-Really , you can demonstrate impossibility and distinquish it from personal incredulity? How would you do that???? Do you know everything there is to know about natural causes? Really?
How can you verify a supernatural cause when you don't have a way to observe it or describe it? How can you be sure that the cause of phenomenon is not just a natural mechanism that you just happen to ignore?
After all our long history of epistemology has proven that every time we rushed to declare something supernatural, when we finally managed to explain it...the explanation was never a supernatural one!
These are not serious arguments sir!!!!

Look Nickolasgaspar, no evidence of a natural mechanism for a particular thing, is evidence of no natural mechanism for that thing, no matter how you spin it. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Yes I understand that this is what you believe The question is why would you ever hold such an irrational belief!
No evidence means.... no evidence, it doen't mean positive evidence or even indications for a magical realm.
Any claim SHOULD stand on its own merits or else you just end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again you don't have a way to exclude our inability to observe or puzzle together facts that can provide evidence for a mechanism.
And again, we have been doing that for ages...positing supernatural stories to explain things.
Mysteries do not qualify as answers for other mysteries, plus every single time we solved a mystery, the solution turned out to be natural.....we have never verified a supernatural cause.

We can not justify the supernatural as an explanatory tool in our metaphysics. Its intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Don't you care avoiding fallacies in your arguments?

Now, when the evidence becomes such that it is impossible that there is a natural mechanism, according to accepted definition of "natural", then you can keep searching for that non-existent natural mechanism forever, which you will not find because there is no evidence of it, or you can turn around to face reality, and make an attempt to understand the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

-You DON'T KNOW that. Impossibility needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
You are confusing the term "there is no evidence" with " our current facts are not enough to provide evidence". You are poisoning the well with your assumptions(one more fallacy).
You don't know if we have all the facts and if advances in our technology will allow new observations to produce additional facts that could support our evidence for a mechanisms. (the history of science...)

There isn't anything to understand about the supernatural because it's a made up bin where magical thinkers through everything we currently don't understand in there. The supernatural is ill defined so it has no explanatory power. We don't observe or verify supernatural causation and we shouldn't use it on things we currently do not understand.
Imagine if we stopped searching for the cause of diseases because our superstitious ancestors came up with supernatural explanations like gods and theodicy,evils spirits , evil eye, cursing etc.
Again your arguments are superstitious and outdated.

I see it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Superstitious beliefs in the supernatural is NOT philosophy.
Philosophy should produce wise claims to assit our understanding of the world....not to point to mystery worlds we have to way to testing them...lol

The supernatural is Pseudo Philosophy.

Partly that's because what we call wellbeing is what we do indeed choose. There is at leat the threat of circularity in the notion of choosing wellbeing. — Banno

Well our biological setup and markers dictate the preferable state and we reason afterwards. This is a fact that makes the concept of "free will" a bit shaky.

Partly it's because "wellbeing" is close to a synonym for "the good". That is there is also the threat of a slide between "we choose what is good" and "we choose wellbeing". — Banno

-Well being is a state while "choosing" what is good for our wellbeing is a different thing all together. This is where our role as agents is needed in order to evaluate what is good for our well being.
We need to understand whether an act is good for everyone so that it wont come back as a boomerang on our well being.
Our well being is contingent to our society's well being.
i.e. we can not promote our well being for ever by steal people's money. Our act is hurting other people's well being and they will act against us(put us in jail). So its important to understand how the well being of our society is linked to our moral evaluations.
Doing the good thing is what promotes our well being. We might have to choose what good thing to do but we don't choose the importance and connection of well being to our moral acts.

But it is not the whole of ethics. So for instance fairness enters into ethics as well. — Banno

Fairness is a value we see in moral acts. Fairness is a promoter of well being of a society.

So it's not that Sam Harris is wrong. It's just that his account is incomplete. — Banno

-How is incomplete?Fairness is not a competing principle. Its an evaluation of specific moral acts that can promote our well being!

No moral system can be complete. Morality, and human choice and action more generally, are not the sort of thing that can be systematised. This should not be surprising, since it is clear that as soon as a system is posited, our creativity will find issue with it. — Banno

I can not agree or disagree with an absolute statement without putting in to the test all known systems
and prove their incompleteness.
There are huge difficulties in their applicability but the point isn't to just prove their incompleteness but which one allow objective moral judgments.
The argument for systematicity but objectivity. We can arrive to objective moral judgements if we acknowledge an objective principle by which we can evaluate which acts are in favor or against it.
Will we find grey zones and inadequate data for many cases? Sure.
But we will be able to answer many of our moral questions and dilemmas .

Maths provides a close analogue. We know that any mathematical system complex enough to encompass addition will be incomplete; there will always be mathematical truths that are not provable from within that system. Why would we suppose that ethics would be any less perplexing? — Banno

-We need to remove absolute concepts from our reality. Absolute concepts are only there as beacons to help up strive toward a goal, but it would be irrational to think that we can finally arrive to an abstract or to abandon all efforts because we can't.
Identifying which acts affect the well being of a society and all its members is a good rule of thumb that we can build on.

Any system that limits itself to how things are can never encompass how things ought to be. — Banno

-And again you return back to this deepity that has nothing to do with how our biology forces specific "oughts". Its not our choice to decide which acts promote our well being, that is already decided by our biology. Our job is to decide whether we care about well being and whether we bother to act accordingly.

If one were to posit that part of what we ought do is to seek wellbeing, I'd have no objection. But it is not the whole. — Banno

The correct question is do we ought to seek morality? The question is simple. Since our biology forces us to value our well being ...THEN WE OUGHT TO SEEK MORALITY because our moral judgments essentially are the evaluation of acts that are either against or in favor our well being.

How do they do that? If those metrics are not themselves 'well-being', then you've got to somehow relate them to the concept of well-being you're using. You've still not actually defined well-being. — Isaac

Well being is a state which encompasses many different elements like positive emotions, good physical health and social connections. We can list all the emotions and characteristics that promote such a state and trace them back to our basic drives and homeostatic configurations and see that we are biologically preconditioned to seek a state of well being.

Well I haven't missed any step because none of you have admitted yet that you value well being as the main reason why we are positive towards moral acts and negative towards immoral acts.
If you do then we can take examples of acts and answer all the steps you list.
Unfortunately in that list you are repeating things that I have pointed out as unnecessary.
Again we need those metrics to establish biological predisposition towards a state of well being. From the moment we do that we can accept well being as an objective criterion for moral judgments.
The acts that promote our well being are moral, those against are immoral.

IF we agree with that last thing, then we can proceed on the temporal framework of our judgments since every act can affect differently our wellbeing as individuals and as a society.
Again Banno's question (is/ought) is irrelevant since we have already pointed out that biological predisposition to a specific state is not a matter of choice. We are the descendants of individuals with a genetic predisposition to seek happiness, physical health and avoid suffering.

You shouldn't view my comments as black and white.
People do make choices...but they don't choose what choices they have.
i.e. we don't choose to have a strong urge to avoid pain or suffering.

Suppose I agree that we do see wellbeing. The ethical question is, ought we?

And this is what no amount of scientific evidence can address. — Banno

That is NOT an ethical question...its a given since we know we have biological drives and urges that "force'' to survive and avoid suffering.
We don't have a choice valuing well being. Science can even point to the biological mechanisms responsible for seeking wellbeing.

Great example. Why do you think pharmaceuticals decide to produce pain killers but not pain inducers to by over the counter? Because we value specific states without the need to convince ourselves that we ought to value states free of pain.

-"If smoking causes cancer, presumably it is also morally wrong to sell tobacco.... "
-of course is unethical for many reasons.

So I am not refusing to address any criticism. The criticism you push is scientifically uninformed. We don't choose what we value or seek , especially when things like well being allow us to "be"(survive) and be well (flourish, avoid suffering,)

-"Why ought we seek wellbeing?"
-This is what you are failing to understand even if I have explained it multiple times in these 11 pages.
We don't ought to seek wellbeing! Its like asking why do we ought to seek a state without pain!
We are preconditioned by our biology and our basic drives and urges! Do you choose to ignore your basic emotions of hunger or thirst or feeling too hot or too cold or to be isolated. By addressing those basic emotions and urges you promote your well being.
Why is this so difficult for you???

do yourself a favor and read about all the critique on the is/ought "problem" before using it in the future . Its a superficial excuse that can't much our modern epistemology.
i.e. start from wikipedia...check the long list of responses and follow the references.

You are hiding behind this artifact which is irrelevant to my argument.
You haven't post a single argument. You just post irrelevant links.
This distinction is not an answer to Secular Morality.

try to define what the preternatural is for you and try not to use an argument from ignorance (pointing to phenomena that you think they are non natural).

No the problem is with the opinion expressed by your statement. Clearly when the assumption of the supernatural is necessitated by a combination of the evidence, the definition of "natural", and logic, then philosophers ought to assume the supernatural. Your opinion is that philosophy should stop short of assuming the supernatural, even if the supernatural is necessitated by the logic. That's why your opinion is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Logic can never necessitate an ill defined unfalsifiable assumption about a realm.
This is really simple. The supernatural is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we are unable to identify the cause of a phenomenon , we rush to make up an explanation with magical properties that defy natural roles. That is intellectual lazyness and has been proven a the main reason of delaying our epistemic advances. Every time we managed to solve a mystery we never verified anything supernatural.

You left out evidence for something which has no natural mechanism. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No when lacking evidence for a natural mechanism, means that we ....lack evidence for a natural mechanism. It doesn't mean that we have evidence for the supernatural!

-"Take free will for example. We have evidence of free will, and there is no natural mechanism to explain it."
-Whatlol? You are pulling my leg right? We don't have free will. We are bind by our biology and peer pressure and environmental influences etc. We have will that ins't free. We only have some really brief bursts of freedom mainly for superficial choices.
This is a theological not a philosophical concept.

This is not true. All that is required is evidence of something which is not natural. This effectively demonstrates the necessity for the supernatural to be part of the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Declaring something you made up or don't understand non natural is not a good way to prove the supernatural.
Sorry its special pleading to change the standards of logic just because you dig magic.

As I said, evidence that there is something which is not natural, is evidence of the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry but we have no evidence of anything not natural. We have natural processes that we understand and natural processes that we don't understand.
You are making a fallacious argument from ignorance...and in the case of free will its a fallacy from Personal incredulity.

I only accept what Aristotle understood to be important. Empirical investigation(physika/science) should always inform our metaphysics...but yes, you get the point.

I mostly agree with you. However I would say that only the third point above is science. The third scientific point is dependant on the first two philosophical points to specify the values of the desired outcomes. — PhilosophyRunner

No, we can objectively prove that both premises are based on evidence provided by science. I have explained them and I can do that again if you like.
In short our biological drives, urges and biology (homeostasis) have evolved in a specific way that force us through affections and emotions to strive for specific things and conditions. What we strive for is what we reason in to the concept of "value".

It is the conundrum I faced as someone form a science background where eventually I had to accept that philosophy was required in order to specify what is valuable, which science can then investigate. That is how I ended up on this forum! — PhilosophyRunner

-We are in agreement on that...but for our philosophy to be valid it must be founded on Objective systematic knowledge (Science).
I am not the one who tried to distinquish science from philosophy. I always state that you can not do science without philosophy and good philosophy without science.
The philosophy needed in this case offers us Sound Arguments since all the premises are founded on science.

Now if everyone agreed on the value of outcomes, there would be no issues. We would all just live happily ever after together. But the issue is people value things differently on the most contentious issues. You mention the shared principle - the problem comes when there is disagreement on what should be the shared principle. Science can't answer that question. — PhilosophyRunner

-Of course it can. Our disagreement doesn't make the principle or its metrics subjective! In order to understand how we value things we need to explain how our biology experiences our environment, how those stimuli produce affections and emotions and how we reason them in to feelings, values, meaning.
We "value" specific things based on what our biological drives and urges are evolved to strive for.
Those are not as subjective as most people think.

We need to reevaluate the methods we use in our correction facilities because they are against the well being of the prisoners.
That argument also favors the role of "well being" in morality.

Why do you think Kant is just metaphysical speculation? — Constance

never did....I have pointed out that I only used his name to highlight the issue of a fallacy (argument from false authority).
You seem to be unable to follow this conversation.

Prescientific concepts of life might well have included an element of consciousness — bert1

You are doing an ancient mistake where our philosophy presumed magical substances conveniently having the same properties with the phenomenon we are trying to explain.
In real Philosophy and Science we don't presume complex substances being the source of a phenomenon.
We know that processes are responsible for phenomena.

OK, thanks. Why can't all that happen without there being an emotion, meaning or feeling? — bert1

Well "why" is not the right question. Neuroscience describes how we as agents produce meaning and identify intention and purpose in other agents. We are driven by stimuli that arouse our emotions that we reason in to feelings, concepts thoughts.
A child that has no previous experiences and its extreme reactions to stimuli (hot food, falling down, cold weather etc) show that his brain reacts without previous quid-lines. As we grow up we construct a theoretical model based on our emotions and experiences of the world. We know what to expect and our reactions are informed.

Panpsychism is a conclusion, not an assumption. Consider:

Either panpsychism, emergentism or eliminativism
Not emergentism
Not eliminativism
Therefore, panpsychism.

That's a valid argument. It might be unsound (one or more promises might be false), but that's another conversation. Panpsychism is the conclusion, not an assumption. — bert1

Not really we don't have evidence that renders panphycism necessary or sufficient in explaining anything. Its a declaration.
It can not explain why when someone crashes he skull he is no longer able to perform mentally.
Its doesn't explain why damaging the Ascending Reticular Activating system a thinking agent stops being able to be aware of the environment his mental stimuli(thoughts) or his bodily functions.
it can not explain why other objects don't display agency.

Its a made up answer, mostly because it carries a death denying ideology in it.
We can not test your idea ...while we can verify the essential role of a brain for all the above conditions.
All the anecdote story about Laplace and Napoleon "we have no need of that hypothesis".

Here you have used the word 'conscious' in your definition of 'consciousness'. You could means several different things, and I'm not sure which one. — bert1

replace it with "aware"...but it is the same. Its one of this cases where using the actual word saves you from unnecessary descriptions.
To be aware of what exist to be aware of stimuli environmental or organic. To direct your attention to a stimuli and process its meaning, choose an action,etc etc.

These are gradations in what we are conscious of. They are not gradations between being conscious of nothing at all, and being conscious of something. — bert1

What..................? That is a binary position mate...you can use it as an argument for nothing. You are either right or not right, you are either guilty or not guilty.
That is a tautology based on the Logical Absolutes.
There is gradation on what we can be conscious of many reasons and that proves that our physiology and conditions affect the quality of our conscious states.
Again there is no value saying that one can be conscious or not. It offers zero meaningful information to the discussion or your position.

But that's to prejudice the debate. — bert1

-No that is what provides credibility and to each competing position in a debate. Objective evidence that are accessible to everyone.

-"That everything must be a mechanism is itself a theory."
-No, everything must be a description of a observable and testable mechanism not a hypothesis on unfalsifiable assumptions.

Unfalsifiable by an empirical experiment, perhaps, but there are other ways to falsify claims. It's true that it's not a typical scientific hypothesis. — bert1

-Not really. Unfortunately for us only empirical experimentation can provide Objective facts for verifying or falsifying a statement. We can logical prove or disprove a claim to but that is not possible for unfalsifiable through methodological means claims.

It would be odd to expect it to. The idea that conscious states arise is emergentism. Panpsychism is typically a denial of emergentism. — bert1

-Then not only Panpsychism denies an observable fact of the world, that's emergence (i.e. two explosive molecules when combined produce a substance with the emergent fire extinguishing property) it also makes a medieval claim for a substance being responsible for a phenomenon (like Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone energy etc).
This is a text book example of How pseudo Philosophy sounds like.
Disconnected from reality and reproducing the same errors.

How and why mental content is what it is, and what entities have what content and why, these are still open and difficult questions, and I agree panpsychists have not really got many good answers to these yet. I think various functionalist theories could be re-purposed to this end, perhap — bert1

-The difference is that if you search a Neuroscience database or take an academic course you won't just find that many of the questions have been answered, we also use those answers to produce testable predictions (diagnostics) and technical applications (surgery/medical protocols).
This is what philosophy not founded on science can not produce. (Descriptions Predictions and applications).

Panpsychists generally do not think consciousness is an advanced property, it's a primitive, simple property, of the kind that could be fundamental. — bert1

_yes this is something that you need to demonstrated not assume. Demonstrated contingency to brain functions and metabolic molecules and external stimuli and a period of learning (new born) don't really leave any room for a competing hypothesis .

What should be the default position is an interesting question. Arguments could be made either way it seems to me. — bert1

No it can't The default position is always founded on objectively demonstrated facts. We can demonstrate the necessary and sufficient role of a functioning brain for thinking agents to interact and be aware of their environment. We can not establish such criteria for supernatural ideology.


-"Panpsychism is ontologically simpler than emergentism, for example. Emergentism says there are two kinds of system in nature: conscious systems and unconscious ones. Panpsychists usually say there is just one, conscious."
-Not really because it introduces an unnecessary agent in addition to a verified and necessary mechanism for a thinking agent to function.
No emergentism doesn't say anything about competing systems. It only describes the conditions needed for ANY property to emerge and be observable. It isnt limited to the property of consciousness. Combustion, mitosis, digestion,liquidity, rigidity etc etc all emerge under a specific condition.
Its a principle found in Complexity Science, a set of methodologies where reductionistic methodologies aren't helpful at all.

Some versions of panpsychism do make predictions, but not empirically testable ones. — bert1

-So they actually don't make predictions since they can not be tested.


-"The difficulty is that there is no objective test for the presence of consciousness in systems other than our own self."
-Of course there are objective metrics that allow us to identify conscious states in other agents, from our interactions to necessary brain functions to our ability to decode complex conscious thoughts by watching the fMRI scan of a patient.(2017 Carnegie Mellon).

-" I know I'm conscious. But I can't empirically verify that you are, or that my friend is. I think you probably are, but that is based on philosophical reasoning, not on empirical investigation. If you are saying that philosophy is not science, I agree with you.
-Of course you can. You are responding to my conscious states....by consciously processing what they have produced. Lets not hide behind our fingers, shall we.
We can examine the facts, and be sure that an agent who is aware of you and your input is conscious of....you and your input. This is why he is able to react according to what he is aware of....

-"This is clearly a biased statement"
-the problem is with the nature of philosophy not with my statement describing the incompatible nature of supernatural assumptions.

Whenever evidence and logic indicate the reality of that which is beyond the natural, then the appropriate conclusion is the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

- That is more of an argument from ignorance fallacy.
We don't have evidence indicating that something lies beyond the natural or point to causal role in the world.

We either have evidence for a natural mechanism or have zero evidence for a natural mechanism. This is the true dichotomy.
your conclusion is based on a false dichotomy. In order for the supernatural to be part the discussion, you will first need to demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.
Supernatural appears to be of a label that we stick on things we ignore.
Logic can not accept explanations that are based on unsound arguments. Any premise need to be verified and no premise for the supernatural has this luxury.
Logic dictates that you need to have evidence for your claim( the supernatural). The lack of evidence for an other claim doesn't automatically render yours the answer.

Again Philosophy, in order to be successful and true to its goal (produce wise claims) it needs to be founded on knowledge. The supernatural has zero objective demonstrations so by definition it can not be addressed by Philosophy.

no he is arguing that well being is not a good principles since incarcerating people affects some biological metrics that are linked with how immoral acts affect our biology(my foundations on the dominant place of well being as a principle for moral judgments)....thus punishing people for doing immoral acts is an immoral act.
I pointed out that those metrics are useful to show us that well being has biological foundations(not arbitrary) and moral/immoral behavior affects our biological negative or positive.

↪Nickolasgaspar
Cheers. GO back to this, if you would:

Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.

I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"? — Banno


Do you understand the is/ought distinction?

DO you agree that there is a difference in kind between saying how things are, and how things ought to be? — Banno

How is this relevant to my position????
Nature stays indifferent on the topic of our well being. We as agents that value our well being investigate which biological metrics enable the state of well being and what kind of behavior among peers in a society promotes it.
In the above framework , we don't have to assume agency in nature and the is/ought is only relevant to what we value and want for all the members of our society.
This is the only way our list of oughts can be evaluated....under a shared principle.
The is/ought relation is a subject of study...you should dismiss it automatically because some philosophers did not have the science knowledge to analyze it.

well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction, so I am not so sure about that....but you can always falsify my hypothesis. Enjoy your dinner and "news" ..if that is possible by our modern media!.

One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent. — Banno

I think this is unavoidable since its an intrinsic feature of all intellectual attempts founded on assumed supernatural artifacts.
A bigger and far more important issue is our inability to demarcate Philosophy from theology and supernatural ideologies in general.

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

-"

hese threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Correct, Philosophy needs to use established epistemology as a starting point not faith based assumptions.

God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer. — Banno

All philosophical explanations should stop before entering any supernatural assumption.

Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality — Banno

I agree.

your short responses are an indication that you avoid diving in and challenging your preconceptions on the topic.
Again my argument on the objective nature of well being would be falsified only if you were able to point out cases where well being isn't contingent to those biological metrics.(Pathology and stress)
It would also help your case identifying immoral acts that can promote the well being of members and their society as a whole.

what evaluation am I skipping?

I see that I go a step further compared to Harris.
I point out specific biological metrics that render well being an objective principle for our moral evaluations.

Either way ...Even if we agree that Well being is a subjective standard for morality, from the moment we decide to use it as such we can arrive to objective judgments.
Its like the goal we assume in a game.
I will argue that the goal of a game, lets pick chess, is to win. You might argue that is to have fun or whatever.
So Winning can be a subjective principles(among other candidates) in a game of chess. From the moment we both accept that winning is the goal,we then can make Objective judgments on what moves favor a win or a loss.
Now I can argue that winning adds to the element of fun and that fun is contingent to the element of winning. I can point to personal experiences with siblings and friends or professional sports or challenges in a bar or at home, the established need of clear rules and officials that overview the process and how fun goes out of the window when people are exposed for cheating to win . The excitement is multiplied by the prospect of the outcome (the goal of winning).

The same is true for well being. We can say that Well being is a subjective goal but the moment we accept it we are able to produce objective judgments on which acts support or not that goal.
I go a step further and point out that Well being is also a "goal" for specific human biological metrics and social behavior.
Since immoral or moral acts affect those metrics, we are forced to link those two.(morality and well being). Acts with moral value promote beneficial states of our biology.
So science can "determine human values” or “tell us what’s objectively true about morality” or “give us answers about right and wrong,” by offering to our philosophy the facts needed to make those determinations.
In reality science doesn't decide what is moral or not. THe term being (being(surviving) and well(flouring) address two "goals" that our biological drives and urges serve.
Our drives "force" us to Survive (by emotions like hunger, thirst), to flourish(increase safety and meet energy demands, cooperate) and to procreate(sexual and social drives).
Seeking Happiness and avoiding pain are qualities that depend on our moral actions.

So the claim of the author "Here’s the problem. Premise (1) is a philosophical premise. It’s not a fact of science, it’s not a fact of nature ". is wrong.
(premise 1 1. Morality is “all about” improving the well-being of conscious creatures.)

Its a sound philosophical argument supported by the above facts. but again as I pointed out, even if it was a subjective declaration,by accepting it we can arrive to objective conclusions on what acts promote our well being and what doesn't.

thanks for the link! I will provide my feedback when I get through with it.
To be honest I can not see how an Analytic and systematic way of gathering and analyzing facts can NOT be the proper way to inform our moral evaluations but I do like any critique on Harris's ideas....because I disagree with many things he has to say (especially politics).

As I explained to Issac, those metrics are how we confirm well being as an important principle and criterion in our moral evaluations.
i.e. we know that stress related pathology is the No 1 threat in human and social animal groups. If an act inflicts suffering and increases the chances of death then we can list which acts have this affect on human condition and evaluate them as good or bad(moral or immoral).
Since such acts affect our wellness and our ability to "be" (survive) we are able to identify a connection between well being and morality.

OK, so to test whether some behaviour is moral we have to put all the members of the society it effects into fMRI scanners, test for cortisol, oxytocin, in every one (or a stratified sample?). Then what? Do we average the results, use consensus? What's the threshold above which an action is immoral? How much of these chemicals is worth individual autonomy? what a rise in oxytocin coupled with a rise in cortisol, how do handle such a complex reactions as that? What about temporary spike in stress response followed by a subsequent drop in the long term? — Isaac

No man! Why is this so difficult for you. Again as I told you many times,those biological metrics only verify to us that well being is an important principle for morality. Well being is contingent to those biological metrics. We know that our physical and mental health depends on specific values for those metrics.
We don't need to scan people in order to do a moral evaluation...lol
The only thing we need to do is study those metrics, understand why well being is linked to those metrics(why i.e. forcing the productions of glucocorticoids by putting people under stressful situations(immoral acts) is linked to documented pathodology) and use well being as principle for our moral judgments.

I'm aware of your intentions, but the effort failed as you've failed to show that we have any such ability, nor that moral acts reinforce those metrics. — Isaac

First of all Its not my job to show anything. Its everyone's obligation to learn about basic human biology IF his intention is to talk about a biological byproduct of human behavior and be in the position to judge people's arguments. No matter what I "show" if one lacks relevant epistemic foundations my efforts will be a waste of time.
The best source on the topic (online) is the work done by Robert Sapolsky on stress, human behavior and biology. His first book "why zebras don't get ulcers" is a great introduction on stress in social species and their hierarchical societies. His monumental work "BEHAVE" is a book that contains all our knowledge (and our ignorance) on human biology. You will find his lectures at Stanford and his talks on the subject on youtube and other places.
Of course he isn't the only source on the topic, but its a good starting point.

For every metric you mention it seems moral acts reinforce some and worsen others depending entirely on subjective choices about long-term gains and the relative value of individual autonomy vs the rest of society. — Isaac

-No it doesn't, why must I keep repeating the same things. Those metrics just stress the importance of well being, they are not "tools" for individual moral evaluations.
In order to understand what well being is you will need to grasp the differences between Happiness and Pleasure.
Societies are a necessary evil in many aspects since they increase our chances of survival (Being-to be/stay alive) and morality is there to address our wellness ....this make up the term well being.
In societies we need to follow specific rules so that our well being won't be on the expense of other people's well being.
This is why in Secular morality we stress the importance of the well being of individuals in relation to the well being of the whole society. Those ups and downs you mentioned are inevitable but the well being of the whole society (not in the expense of the few) rewards everyone.

So striving for the well being of every individual and our society as a whole is an effort based on objective grounds and principles. It a work in progress for sure,way to many things to figure out but at least we have a point to start and a principle to make objective moral judgments.

People are pretty clueless about this sort of thing. Back in the 40's, The Fountainhead was made into a movie starring Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, a kind of celebration of the capitalist ubermensch, the guy whose talent placed him far above the pettiness of normal people's affairs. Everyone else was a parasite on his genius. Rand thought herself like this.

American Christians were so full of themselves and worshiped the corporate gods of capitalism, and so afraid of communism, they never understood that she was telling them all they were just a bunch parasites to the rich and famous, to whom they should all bow low. And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance

-Again chronicling is irrelevant. What Rand believed or not is irrelevant. Objectivity stands on its own merits. Objectivity has been an established criterion way longer than Rand's takes on its importance.

objectivity has proven its epistemic value. We don't need an argument from false authority to argue in favor of what logic dictates and facts verify. Rand's take on the subject is irrelevant. Science has been enjoying a run away success in epistemology by using Objective standards and independent verification for more than 400 years.
Now since most of you pseudo philosophers are only good in chronicling....check when Rand make her observations on the contribution of objectivity in science....

I understand that you are here to protect the echo chamber of your specific death denying ideology but your dis-likeness of specific philosophers can not change how we evaluate knowledge and the importance of objective verification in epistemology....sorry.

The keyword is "interpretations". We have more than 10 quantum interpretations competing each other...without any supportive facts.
It is metaphysics and it is a proper hypothesis since it "multiplies" entities that we know they can exist.
We know dimensions exist, we know a world exists, the assumption is just unparsimonious but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
The principles are Naturalistic, so it means that to verify it we will not need to investigate realms that do not interact with our methods.
MW interpretation is not science. its a philosophical take on observations that might help us in the future interpret new evidence that don't fit in all other frameworks of QM.