'No means no,' you've targeted how laughable "race" shall nut2nut over established just a single guild theoleem bz Trude Herr pfifff,...the negroe race Dame Ebola van Charite-Westberlin,...when that is all Rap to HipHop the Crackpipe, once, fuck you...this is A.L.F. Mr.No means no , you aint save me, fuck the fascist bisexual misbehaviour polyvocation highly forbidden. Amen.
The deadbrat mask 'atemlos,' established by Institution service 'state of emerge,' BDSM. The vegan Schnitzella-Autriche.
ЬГрфьчд юЗюфоЬчнцбйШд дфшлый(€",....
Subject: Meaningfulness of Deontic Terminology
How is deontic terminology (e.g. “should”, “ought”, “duty”…) meaningful? That is, how would we arrive at the conclusion that X “ought” to do Y, or that it is X’s “duty” is to do Y? Clearly, this is not an inference that can be made merely from the definitions of the terms themselves – and if it’s an inductive inference, then of what sort?
Please note that deonitic terms can be used as evaluative terms. “Ought,” for example, can indicate necessity or sufficiency – as in the statement, “If he is really a bachelor, then he ought to be single.” We are not concerned with these uses here. We are concerned with normative uses. For instance, “If he is a bachelor, then he ought to find himself a wife.” The use of ought in this statement is not evaluative.
The deontic operators work much like modal operators:
p => p
(p=>q) => p => q
Op => Pp
O(p=>q) => Op => Oq
Instead of thinking possible worlds, think ideal worlds. Op means p is true in all ideal worlds. Pp means true in (at least) one ideal world.
According to Hume you can't infer ought from is. So basically what duties you adopt is up to you. Kant argued that all moral imperatives are derived from the Categorical imperative. I've also seen such systems that adopt: Otrue.
Thank you for your response.
The deontic operators work much like modal operators...
"p ~~p" is a truth within the context of modal logic, but it does not indicate that any particular thing is (or can be) necessary or possible. In order to do so we would have to make an inference of some kind. The same can be said about deontic logic.
Ich habe mich aufgehoben....Ottoooooo
Of course, just like modal logics, it needs some other system behind it. It is a formalisation in every sense of the word. Only when you have empirically or otherwise decided what things we really ought to do, we can use it. It provides a formal structure.
In relation with laws for instance it provides a nice framework work in. By the way, I must say as Keda did not say that, deontic logic has been created by a Finnish philosopher, G. H. von Wright. smiling face
Only when you have empirically or otherwise decided what things we really ought to do, we can use it.
So I simply decide what people ought to do - I don't infer it from the facts?