-->
@secularmerlin
Well yes, thats the point. If you are alive you have this goal, and therefore any moral premise-based off of it is adhering to Hume's Guillotine, which was my entire point.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Theweakeredge
I would agree, however, the insistence on the same rebuttal - whenever I have repeatedly explained the problem with it gets frustrating.
Your insistence on repeating the same objection is also somewhat confusing.
Paraphrasing to attempt to circumvent impasse. Please modify any statements you believe are inaccurate.
3RU7AL: "IS" = ALIVE = MAINTAINING ALIVE = CARE ABOUT AT LEAST ONE OTHER HUMAN
Theweakeredge: MAINTAINING ALIVE IS AN "OUGHT" NOT AN "IS".
3RU7AL: ALIVE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF DESIRE AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ALIVE, THEREFORE THIS DESIRE AND ABILITY = "IS"
Theweakeredge: THAT'S ABSURD.
3RU7AL: PLEASE BE SLIGHTLY MORE SPECIFIC.
-->
@secularmerlin
Only (adult autonomous) living humans with the goal of survival survive therefore any living human (who is adult and has autonomy) is going to have this goal.
Elegant.
-->
@3RU7AL
No you are arguing that we are alive, I am saying, "Yes, yes we are, however, that does not inform whether we ought to be so"
-->
@Theweakeredge
The is statement
If you are a human and alive you must value your existence to keep doing so.
The ought
You ought to keep existing.
Another is statement.
Living humans are required for this dialogue to happen.
Another is statement
Human regard for human life is required for this dialogue.
And damned if there isn't another implied ought at the end. This table won't hold any ought that come from any is. Back to the drawing board.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well yes, thats the point. If you are alive you have this goal, and therefore any moral premise-based off of it is VIOLATING Hume's Guillotine, which was my entire point.
Hume's Guillotine:
YOU CAN NEVER DERIVE AN "OUGHT" FROM AN "IS".
WE JUST DERIVED AN "OUGHT" FROM AN "IS".
THE "IS" = HUMAN SURVIVAL INSTINCT + HUMAN SOCIAL INSTINCT
THE "IS" = THE "OUGHT"
THE "OUGHT" = THE "IS"
THE IS IS THE OUGHT AND THE OUGHT IS THE IS.
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong - you have an is and ought, from which you derive another ought. I am saying that your current syllogism was a non-sequitur, you had to add another premise which was an ought for it to not be.
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore, I am very tired of your trolling, either get serious or that's it, I've already declared my intentions in this regard once, this is the last time I'll do so.
-->
@secularmerlin
And damned if there isn't another implied ought at the end. This table won't hold any ought that come from any is. Back to the drawing board.
What is the implicit "OUGHT"?
The only "OUGHT" that I can detect is also an "IS" (logically necessary and or empirically demonstrable).
And any "OUGHT" that "IS" also an "IS" VIOLATES Hume's Guillotine.
-->
@3RU7AL
THE "IS" = HUMAN SURVIVAL INSTINCT + HUMAN SOCIAL INSTINCT
Or in other words enough living humans = some moral code/social contract. I think this might still just be an is from an is. It really is a hard concept to get around.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong - you have an is and ought, from which you derive another ought.
You really need to be more specific. Which specific statements to you believe qualify as "IS" statements and which statements qualify as "OUGHT" statements?
I believe I've qualified every single "OUGHT" statement as an "IS" statement. Effectively "removing" all (hidden) contingent "OUGHT" statements (law of excluded middle).
I am saying that your current syllogism was a non-sequitur, you had to add another premise which was an ought for it to not be.
I understand you object because you imagine it is "absurd" or "non-sequitur" but I don't understand your SPECIFIC objection.
I've condensed my statements to bare minimums in order to facilitate YOUR CRITIQUE.
-->
@secularmerlin
THE "IS" = HUMAN SURVIVAL INSTINCT + HUMAN SOCIAL INSTINCTOr in other words enough living humans = some moral code/social contract. I think this might still just be an is from an is. It really is a hard concept to get around.
Is human survival instinct and human social instinct logically necessary and or empirically demonstrable?
I believe they are logically necessary and empirically demonstrable.
Therefore they are not "hidden" "OUGHT" statements, but they are actual FACTUAL "IS" statements.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Furthermore, I am very tired of your trolling, either get serious or that's it, I've already declared my intentions in this regard once, this is the last time I'll do so.
I AM 100% SINCERE.
Why do you continuously insist that you know what I'm thinking and feeling?
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think it's necessary whenever we are discussing a single statement, and we have been discussing for posts on end, I do not feel you are being honest with your uncertainty.
"BRU7AL: ALIVE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF DESIRE AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ALIVE, THEREFORE THIS DESIRE AND ABILITY = "IS""
That does not inform whether we should or should not be alive, therefore your argument is a non-sequitur attempting to inform a moral premise
-->
@3RU7AL
In this instance, you copying my exact format of words while only changing specific words is what I was referring to
-->
@Theweakeredge
No you are arguing that we are alive, I am saying, "Yes, yes we are, however, that does not inform whether we ought to be so"
Ok.
We are alive and being alive has a few logically necessary requirements or you might say, prerequisites.
One of these logically necessary prerequisites is "human survival instinct".
One of these logically necessary prerequisites is "human social instinct".
Because "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" are both indisputable FACTS, they are both "IS" statements.
Our "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" by their mere indisputable and logically necessary EXISTENCE motivate our sense of what humans "OUGHT" to do.
In other words, "IS" + "IS" = "OUGHT".
We just derived an "OUGHT" from an "IS".
Hume's Guillotine is defeated.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't think it's necessary whenever we are discussing a single statement, and we have been discussing for posts on end, I do not feel you are being honest with your uncertainty.
The conversation is comprised of a great many variations on a theme. I don't want to run down the wrong track at full steam.
"BRU7AL: ALIVE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF DESIRE AND ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ALIVE, THEREFORE THIS DESIRE AND ABILITY = "IS""That does not inform whether we should or should not be alive, therefore your argument is a non-sequitur attempting to inform a moral premise
Ok.
So, are you suggesting that even if we are alive and we want to stay alive, that DOESN'T mean that we OUGHT to be alive?
-->
@3RU7AL
So, are you suggesting that even if we are alive and we want to stay alive, that DOESN'T mean that we OUGHT to be alive?
Precisely
Our "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" by their mere indisputable and logically necessary EXISTENCE motivate our sense of what humans "OUGHT" to do.
No, they necessitate that we care for others, they do not tell us what we ought to do their is a distinction, this is a category error
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, are you suggesting that even if we are alive and we want to stay alive, that DOESN'T mean that we OUGHT to be alive?Precisely
This is begging the question.
Under what conceivable hypothesis is there an "OUGHT" that contradicts human life?
The question being begged is, "if you refuse to accept human instinct as a valid motive and basis for a moral framework, what the fuck do you consider a valid motive?"
MOTIVE = GOAL
GOAL = MOTIVE
-->
@Theweakeredge
Our "human survival instinct" and "human social instinct" by their mere indisputable and logically necessary EXISTENCE motivate our sense of what humans "OUGHT" to do.No, they necessitate that we care for others, they do not tell us what we ought to do their is a distinction, this is a category error
Ok, I appreciate your precision.
We (apparently) agree that these "IS" statements motivate our care for others.
Can we also agree that our care for others is the basis of all concepts of morality?
-->
@3RU7AL
No, we can agree its the subjective morality of humans, it is a subjective goals.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I'll tell you something. You can't say it is right to have a goal without a goal you are referencing.
Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can we also agree that our care for others is the basis of all concepts of morality?No, we can agree its the subjective morality of humans, it is a subjective goals.
Isn't all morality based on implicit (or explicit) goals?
What other possible "morality" would be or could be "not-subjective"?
And for that matter, what other possible "goal" would be or could be "not-subjective"?
-->
@Tarik
Well I'll tell you something. You can't say it is right to have a goal without a [specific and explicit] goal you are referencing.Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.
(IFF) "nihilists" are alive and participate in conscious activities (THEN) they necessarily have goals
-->
@3RU7AL
Some individuals have "more" "caring/cooperation" instinct and some individuals have "less".
Or none at all.
It is one you accept, I accept, everybody excepts
On the contrary, you accept subjective morality (whatever that is) and I accept objective morality so you and I are not the same.
-->
@Tarik
Some individuals have "more" "caring/cooperation" instinct and some individuals have "less".Or none at all.
Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans.
-->
@Tarik
It is one you accept, I accept, everybody exceptsOn the contrary, you accept subjective morality (whatever that is) and I accept objective morality so you and I are not the same.
We are functionally indistinguishable in as much as we BOTH are doing our best to promote our own general well-being and the well-being of at least one other human.
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans.
...So? Why do we have to live?
-->
@Tarik
Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans....So? Why do we have to live?
Nobody is forcing you to live.