Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That is true.  ONLY through demonstration can you show that something is not what it seems thereby CHANGING  what it seems to be to come in line with this new information. 
Not if the demonstration is in death.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Not if the demonstration is in death.
IF something is only demonstrable in death and IF we are both alive THEN it is by definition undemonstrable to us.

IF it is undemonstrable to us THEN it is irrelevant to this conversation. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Your the one that’s so hellbent on arguing my beliefs, if you really feel like discussing an afterlife is irrelevant than just say the word and I’ll gladly turn the floor to you.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Your the one that’s so hellbent on arguing my beliefs, if you really feel like discussing an afterlife is irrelevant than just say the word and I’ll gladly turn the floor to you.
My stance on this has not changed. An afterlife is irrelevant in determining ones attitudes about an afterlife if (and only if) one cannot test and observe this supposed afterlife. Then it cannot effect ones attitudes or behaviors even if SPECULATION about any possible afterlife can.

Or in other words.

IF we cannot observe an afterlife THEN all our ideas about it are by necessity only speculation.

I will now define this new term.

SPECULATION 

Any unverified idea, "fact", or explanation. One's best guess in the absence of any definitive evidence. An off the cuff hypothesis which may or may not even be falsifiable.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If I accept that argument are you willing to defend your beliefs?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
If I accept that argument are you willing to defend your beliefs?
Defend them in what way? My current levels of CONFIDENCE in science are CONTINGENT upon the SPECULATION that my senses are perceiving REALITY and the EFFICACY with which science predicts events and improves human lives (as I understand human quality of life from my perspective as a human).

IF the universe can be demonstrated to be an illusion or IF one could demonstrate a better practical approach to understanding the universe (illusion or not) than science THEN my beliefs would by necessity be forced to adjust to this new information. 

I do not choose my beliefs I am convinced by perceived empirical data.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So what empirical data did you perceive to come to your understanding of subjective meaning (whatever that is)?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So what empirical data did you perceive to come to your understanding of subjective meaning (whatever that is)?
It is the human conception of morality. If that isn't "real" morality that is no impediment to my proposition. We do observably have conceptions of morality. I have one and you have one. Our conceptions of morality differ and therefore are subjective by definition. Did I just say anything untrue? If not you have at best an argument ad populi against the way I am applying terms. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It is the human conception of morality.
You can’t conceive something that you don’t know, what is subjective morality?

We do observably have conceptions of morality.
Observable things aren’t subjective.

differ and therefore are subjective by definition.
Disagreement doesn’t equate to subjectivity, for example the shape of the earth is a topic many disagree on yet it’s still objective.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You can’t conceive something that you don’t know,
Sure you can. It is called imagination.
what is subjective morality?
It is whatever we imagine morality is in the absence of any observable objective morality. 
Observable things aren’t subjective.
You are making a category error here. In as much as we can say that humans, objectively speaking, have opinions the opinions themselves are still subjective. 

The sun is hot.

This sounds like a fact but it is not. It is a subjective opinion. In fact whether or not the sun is hot depends on context (what we are using to measure our understanding of what is "hot"). The truth is that the sun is not particularly hot for a star being mostly average in almost every way. The truth is that the sun is much MUCH hotter than earth and that you or I would not survive there.

[The sun is not particularly hot] (for a star) [subjective] (subjectively chosen standard)
{The sun is not particularly hot for a star}
{Objectively verifiable fact based on a subjectively applied standard}.

This is an important concept so if you don't understand you need to ask for clarification at this time.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It is called imagination.
...You KNOW your imagination.

It is whatever we imagine morality is in the absence of any observable objective morality.
I can’t imagine something if I don’t know what it is, for the SECOND time what is it?

the opinions themselves are still subjective. 
Yes, but that observation isn’t.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
the opinions themselves are still subjective. 
Yes, but that observation isn’t.
Actually this is my whole point. We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong. I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm" and you can say "huh uh (some undemonstrated) god(s) decide what is right and wrong" and both of those are opinions. 

Provided we could agree to a standard (like if you demonstrate some god(s) and that god(s)'s moral standard and an explanation of why this counts as more than just an opinion OR if you believe that some god(s) moral standard includes promoting and safeguarding wellbeing and so we can agree from there since our goal in this respect would be the same) then we can make (some) objective statements based on the standard we are subjectively applying for our own reasons.

For example 

IF human wellbeing is a consideration in assessing moral behavior and possible culpability (to us as individuals for whatever reason) THEN we can agree that all things being equal it is better morally not to kill someone than to kill them.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong.
That makes no sense, you can’t put something into existence and acknowledge it doesn’t exist that’s fundamentally impossible.

I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm"
For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong.
That makes no sense, you can’t put something into existence and acknowledge it doesn’t exist that’s fundamentally impossible.
That isn't precisely what I'm doing. I do use a different definition of right and wrong I think but it really doesn't even after as I can absolutely have a subjective opinion about something that doesn't exist. Voldemort is ugly. The force is strong in this one. 
I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm"
For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing. I remember saying in as much as we can determine harm and wellbeing. 

As for right or wrong, well as far as I know you cannot make objective statements about right and wrong without a subjectively applied goal. This is exactly the concept I was trying to explain in my analogy about the sun.

For example if the goal is to win at chess then there can be objectively right and wrong moves on the board and if your goal is to identify the hottest star you can say objectively that the sun is the wrong star and if we can agree to a goal for human behavior and attitudes (known colloquially as morality) then we can say if the attitudes and behaviors are right or wrong in that context. 

The goal is subjective.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Voldemort is ugly.
Voldemort is a character in a movie and considering that movies exist and you can watch him in that capacity he in fact does exist but in that sense alone.

I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing. I remember saying in as much as we can determine harm and wellbeing.
Great, so if we can determine it then it’s objective. Would you agree that something such as I don’t know murder is objectively harmful?

if we can agree to a goal for human behavior and attitudes (known colloquially as morality) then we can say if the attitudes and behaviors are right or wrong in that context.
But what if we can’t then what? Because there’s many examples of disputes stemming from different specific goals.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Voldemort is a character in a movie and considering that movies exist and you can watch him in that capacity he in fact does exist but in that sense alone.
The afterlife you believe in is a concept in your head and considering concepts exist and you can think about it in that capacity it exists but as far as you can prove in that sense alone.
Great, so if we can determine it then it’s objective. Would you agree that something such as I don’t know murder is objectively harmful?
If we can determine what promotes wellbeing then we can objectively say it promotes wellbeing yes. We can make objective statements about that subjective standard. Murder is a legal distinction. Dying is certainly bad for your health though. I think we can objectively say that dying is bad for your health accepting that there may be some extreme circumstances, like long time coma patients or people in extreme pain from terminal illness, in which it is not as clear cut. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.

about that subjective standard. 
Now your just contradicting yourself because one minute your saying it’s objective and the next your saying it’s subjective, which one is it?

Murder is a legal distinction.
...Okay? Well I’m asking in regards to that distinction.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Now your just contradicting yourself because one minute your saying it’s objective and the next your saying it’s subjective, which one is it?
You can make objective statements based on a subjectively chosen standard. Like the objective statement that the sun is not particularly hot for a star. Or that the sun is the hottest thing in our solar system. How can the sun be both the hottest and not particularly hot? Because we apply standards subjectively. 

I will explain this as many times as necessary for you to understand because it is central to the miscommunication we are having here.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You can make objective statements based on a subjectively chosen standard.
Is well-being and harm subjectively chosen standards? Yes or no?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Yes.

My subjectively chosen standard for assessing right and wrong.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why when I asked

For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
You rejected it?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don't know what you mean by rejection but if you understand the logical process of getting an objective statement based on a subjective standard we can move on. While you aren't under any obligation to supply one I personally would feel better about moving on of you would supply an example of an objective statement based on a subjective standard. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.
This is what I mean, is it so off base to take this as meaning these two things aren’t subjective? If so please explain what you meant by this.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
We can say that some things are objectively harmful to human welfare but first we must have humans whose welfare we can measure and we must agree that human wellbeing has importance before using it to measure whether some behavior or attitude is right or wrong. 

The sun objectively exists and it puts out an objective amount of heat energy but that is just a sterile fact with no intrinsic meaning until we apply some subjective meaning or context against which to measure it. 

Cold sterile facts are intrinsically meaningless. 

A human without sufficient oxygen will die.

A fire without sufficient oxygen will die.

Both statements are objectively true but we subjectively attach greater importance to the death of a human than the death of a fire.

A human with cancer may die.

A human who is shot by a gun may die.

These are both objectively true statements but we subjectively attach moral significance to one and not the other. 

Again this is a really important concept so if you still don't get it we can try again. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Again this is a really important concept so if you still don't get it we can try again. 
It’s not a matter of me not getting it, it’s a matter of you not being consistent and dodging the question, I’m not gonna stop asking until you answer so for the umpteenth time what did you mean by

I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Just that. I don't remember. Why don't you give me the quote you are referencing specifically where I said that and I will try to address the misunderstanding
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You don’t have to remember the only reason to point that out is if you don’t believe it’s subjective.#734

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No not the post where you ask what I meant by saying it the post where I said it. When exactly did I say that harm and wellbeing were themselves subjective rather than being subjectively chosen standards?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What’s the difference?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Well color me disappointed.

Ok I'll try again. 

We can say that some things are objectively harmful to humans but that is only a cold sterile fact until we apply context and subjective meaning. 

Heart attacks and being shot are both objectively harmful. These are facts. Until we agree that we are using these events as a measure of human behavior they are equal. 


Facts are objective and intrinsically meaningless. 

Meaning is provided by context. Context is by it's very nature subjective.