AFSFSM

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 323
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The argument from selfishness for secular morality (or A.F.S.F.S.M.) goes as follows.

IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.

IF self care is worthwhile and IF some other organism contributes to caring for you THEN you ought to care for them right back as part of that self care in as much as no man (ant/zebra/wild dog/bee) is an island.

IF whether or not some person(s) contribute to your care is an unknown quantity (such as all humans who engage in a modern global economy) THEN all things being equal you should care for and about them to insure that care in every possible case.

Topic's author
#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
If anyone sees any structural problems with the argument or can provide some logically necessary counterfactual please present it.
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the link on the second IF/THEN statement is a tad weak - though that might just be the added, "No creature is an island bit" it frames the IF_THEN as if: IF you can't take care of yourself by yourself, THEN you should care for others

I don't think it was your intention but it easily reads that way to me - besides that, I think it's a little bit needlessly complex. I've already shared my own syllogism regarding secular morality, and I believe it to be more concise and... well, better, no offense. 


Topic's author
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why should that be a concern? You can't take care of yourself by yourself can you?
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,255
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Needs a bit of grammatic adjustment, improvement or simplifying,  to make it comprehensible.

A.F.S.F.S.M. is not particularly catchy....And also doesn't make a lot of sense.
Topic's author
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
It doesn't make sense that if you are alive and want to stay that way you should care for those who may one day care for you?
#7
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Why do you concern yourself so much with this syllogism? Considering it’s predicated on what ifs rather than what is.
#8
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
  It seems to arbitrarily assign being alive as "the good" in this moral framework.

  Suppose there's a trolley going down a track, heading towards 5 people. The track forks into three Lanes: Jim on the left, the five in the middle, and a single person on the right. Jim is near a lever to avert the track. Let's assume Jim has already decided to avert the track from the five, and that he knows with certainty, the result of his choice to divert the track. Is Jim:

A) morally obligated to kill the stranger?
B) morally permitted, but not obligated, to kill the stranger?
C) morally prohibited from killing the stranger?

Topic's author
#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Why do you concern yourself so much with this syllogism? Considering it’s predicated on what ifs rather than what is.
That is the NECESSARY structure of a syllogism. 

IF a THEN b.
Topic's author
#10
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
Who keeps setting up trolley tracks in this fashion? Surely whatever happens the trolley owner is liable for all damages not I and not Jim.
#11
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,250
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Excellent Secular M!

Basically this is what your saying....'one-for-one',  one-for-all and all-for-one.

This is the only way humanity will have existence on Earth beyond 2232, as based on my 5-factor  formula prognostication for humanities end-times-on-Earth.




#12
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That is the NECESSARY structure of a syllogism. 
That’s not what I asked you, I’m asking you why does this SPECIFIC syllogism interests you, and you’ve yet to prove that caring about your life is “secularly moral” (whatever that is).

Topic's author
#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
This is an entirely new conversation. If you do not treat ot like one then we will be done before we start. 

Now can you point out a specific structural flaw in the argument itself?
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,255
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
The necessary structure of a syllogism.

A. B. therefore C.....Not  if A. then B.


And a syllogism is it's own necessity, which isn't necessarily necessary.....If necessary at all.



#15
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What is secular morality? “Just be careful not to define morals out of existence.”
Topic's author
#16
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Secular morality (as it is being used in this conversation) is just the behaviors humans agree to in order to facilitate the cooperation necessary for mutual survival. 

Since humans must cooperate in order to survive and since they agree to these behaviors the concept I am referring to does observably exist.

This is a descriptive definition not a prescriptive one. I am not creating a definition and then looking for something that fits said definition I am defining something I already observe.
Topic's author
#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
The necessary structure of a syllogism.

A. B. therefore C.....Not  if A. then B.


And a syllogism is it's own necessity, which isn't necessarily necessary.....If necessary at all.
Fair enough but let's not complicate thing unnecessarily for Tarik shall we?
#18
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
mutual survival. 
Long story short it’s basically just this? Okay my question to you is what group of people are you trying to convince with this? Because everybody that can see it clearly has “survived” to that point, unless your trying to convince a dead person. Are you arguing in favor of immortality and everybody that passes does so by choice? Like seriously dude what’s your angle here?

Fair enough but let's not complicate thing unnecessarily for Tarik shall we?
Why would that complicate things? I originally agreed with that line of reasoning just didn’t care to argue it until you threw shade.
Topic's author
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Long story short it’s basically just this? Okay my question to you is what group of people are you trying to convince with this? Because everybody that can see it clearly has survived to that point, unless your trying to convince a dead person.
I don't know what you mean by "convince". I am not trying to convince any one of any thing. I am just making an observation which explains human behavior and their preoccupation with morality whatever they consider it to be. This said it is a reasonable argument for observing secular morality. 


#20
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I am just making an observation which explains human behavior
People surviving up until the point that they’re not is an observation you felt the need to make a forum about? Don’t really see the point in that but okay.
Topic's author
#21
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So what your saying is that you do not see any structural flaws in my argument?

#22
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Did you not see my immortality point because I would say that’s a flaw, if “secular morality” is simply just surviving then its an argument that can’t last forever because we’re not immortal.

Topic's author
#23
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Did you not see my immortality point because I would say that’s a flaw, if “secular morality” is simply just surviving then its an argument that can’t last forever because we’re not immortal.
Why would we need to be immortal in order to wish to survive as long as possible and therefore observe secular morality? That something is neither perpetual nor perennial does not strip it of all utility. Your car will not last forever that doesn't render it without usefulness while you own it.
#24
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Fine to answer your question I guess I’ll say there is no flaws but I have this feeling that my answer is a bit premature because I’m still missing the point of this forum, you deem it as merely an observation but there’s plenty other common sense observations you haven’t posted about so why this one?
Topic's author
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I'm not sure what hidden layers you are looking for but this is the entirety of my argument. It is reason enough to try to be a "good" person whatever your personal conception of morality is. 

If the question is "why be moral if the universe doesn't care?" then the answer is the A.F.S.F.S.M.
#26
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If the question is "why be moral if the universe doesn't care?" then the answer is the A.F.S.F.S.M.
I don’t know if that suffices as an answer though since it doesn’t apply to those that are not alive.
Topic's author
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know if that suffices as an answer though since it doesn’t apply to those that are dead.
The dead do not concern themselves with morality or anything else as far as I know. Until it is demonstrated otherwise NO argument for ANY kind of morality applies to those that are dead.
#28
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The dead do not concern themselves with morality or anything else as far as I know.
Why does that matter? The dead were once alive and clearly your A.F.S.F.S.M. argument wasn’t enough to convince them from offing themselves so no it still doesn’t suffice as an answer.

Lastly what does A.F.S.F.S.M. stand for anyway?
Topic's author
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
The dead do not concern themselves with morality or anything else as far as I know.
Why does that matter? 
By definition it doesn't matter to my argument at all.
The dead were once alive and clearly your A.F.S.F.S.M. argument wasn’t enough to convince them from offing themselves
Are you seriously suggesting that all or even most organisms commit suicide as opposed to literally any other cause of death? 
#30
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
By definition it doesn't matter to my argument at all.
Then why’d you say “The dead do not concern themselves with morality or anything else as far as I know.”

Are you seriously suggesting that all or even most organisms commit suicide as opposed to literally any other cause of death?
No but for arguments sake how can you ignore them?

Lastly what does A.F.S.F.S.M. stand for anyway?