Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Unfortunately in this game of life the ultimate answer is unknown to me, I just know the basics. Take the Ten Commandments for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay, so even if I accepted this is and ought premise (which I’m not sure I do but let’s give it a shot) why does one have to derive from the other for my position of objective morality to be true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, not attempting to affirm anything...Just producing calculated comments and presenting them to an entertaining discussion platform.
Well maybe you should choose yours words more carefully because you’ve just described affirming.
If lying can achieve a result, it can. We would perhaps use affirmation to give a lie credibility.
Yes, but context matters and the context of this discussion is whether or not morality is objective, if you choose to lie about that you’re at a loss attempting to defend an incorrect position, and why would you want that result?
Morality is a highly variable concept anyway.....Though one could affirm and attribute a moral principle to a situation, and then subsequently ignore that moral principle.
Yes but the narrative is that affirmations intent not whether or not the affirmer will obey.
And...Ought....Is indefinite....If we ought, we nonetheless, might or might not.
Ought is predicated on what we might do it’s predicated on what we should do.
Yet another pointless word argument
If words are so pointless to you then you wouldn’t dedicate a great deal of your time on this forum using many of them and debating them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what? Like really what’s your point? Regardless of whatever labels we make the narrative originally was that they’re all the same and that’s not true that’s why I said to refer to a dictionary because even if humans choose the labels to put in a dictionary we choose different ones to describe different things like objectivity and subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why doesn’t my example work? I’ve heard you utter the same ought and is lines but your not providing any explanations for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you cannot get an ought from an is.
So what’s the is you can’t get an ought from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is
Assuming that oughts exist (God) yes you can because He teaches us that we ought to value human life that’s why murder is illegal. On the other hand if God doesn’t exist then yes I agree there is no ought and the nihilists are correct (but your not a nihilist so).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What’s the point of asking me the same question twice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No it means you will be sad if you don’t live the correct lifestyle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
a lifestyle that leads to eternal happiness.
My explanation of objective morality that you asked for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
subjective something which is dependent on the mind for truth.
Correction the definition didn’t say truth it said existence.
In general you cannot get a moral claim from objective descriptions of reality - hume's guillotine.
Like you said “I could care less about your appeal to authority” for Hume.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
We wouldn’t do that unless theirs truth to it, so what’s your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Check your dictionary....Other than as a legal term "to affirm" carries very little weight.
Are you affirming that? Because if it’s so little to you then why bother?
Otherwise, one will affirm a lie...If one suspects that it will achieve a result.
Not in the case of morality, what result would lying achieve here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is - there is a difference between subjective and objective truth. Therefore there is a difference between objective and subjective proof. Your stubbornness to accept it doesn't change the fact.
What is that difference? And unless you can substantiate the claim that theirs subjective proof then it isn’t a fact regardless of your stubbornness to accept that.
You cannot get an ought from an is.
What’s the ought and is in this case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One can affirm anything......Affirming can be as meaningful or meaningless as one chooses.
Well you can’t choose it to be meaningless if you’re affirming it because of it was truly meaningless to you you wouldn’t affirm it in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How so? Your the one that said facts aren’t true objectively and only proven as if there’s some distinction between objectivity and proof. You’re so inconsistent in your dialogue it’s staggering.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless.... Whether the output is factual, or supposition, the data management process is fundamentally the same, and the data is all from the same database.
You can’t manage facts and fallacies the same it’s fundamentally impossible because there’s a huge distinction between the two.
In simple terms.....Call it whatever you like.....But everything we say, we make up....Even if you read it previously in a dictionary, or any other text book.
Those terms are beyond just classifications they actually mean something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Being a fact does not mean something which is true objectively - it means something which is proven true
...Isn’t proof objective? Have you ever heard of subjective proof?
You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is
I don’t even know how this is correlated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you have this assumption that that means its objectively true
No I don’t I’ve made it abundantly clear a plethora of times that that’s not what I think, stop putting words in my mouth unless you have a direct quote of me saying everything stated as fact is fact, you’re doing nothing but filibustering.
it could also mean its true to you (subjectively)
That’s not what stated as fact means, if that were the case the definition would’ve said stated as opinion, but it doesn’t because morality can’t be stated as an opinion.
you are being needlessly limiting.
It’s not as complicated as you’re trying to make it out to be, when you state something as fact the only logical reason to do so is because you believe it as such (yes I’m very well aware that it not always is) that’s why I made it personal with you because you’re guilty of the exact thing you’re deeming as wrong, judging by your premise you affirm morality ergo state as fact so whatever view you have your stating as fact even though according to you it’s not which makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But when you affirm something that’s exactly what your doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then every time you make your “moral” claims you’re wrong it’s that simple. Do you realize what you’re saying here? Your essentially saying your wrong about every belief you hold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You’re making me go several posts back because I can’t shake this notion of you not getting what it means to affirm something and yes I heard the many times you’ve uttered stated as fact doesn’t mean fact which I agree it doesn’t, but it does mean that every moral claim one makes is stated as fact including you when you make a moral claim, your stating it as fact even though you may or may not be wrong. My question to you (assuming that your right that it’s not fact) is why would you state something as fact if it’s not? Because I have many opinions that I simply state as such I don’t deem them facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not if the goals to get to heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I’d like to remind you that that choice doesn’t only extend to me but to you as well difference is I’m not the one claiming a definition swings in my favor I just deem it as vague and leave it at that. Lastly it can work and still be vague at the same time, vague just means not specific it doesn’t mean wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why do you choose the latter part of the definition as the end all be all over the former? Because judging by that alone the definition is pretty vague but your not saying that are you? Your saying it’s definitively the latter over the former which you’ve yet to substantiate so spare me the “Morality is definitionally of the mind” argument because judging by that definition of principles it’s just as good as mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? That isn't in my syllogism, that is part of a definition of a word in my syllogism - which I demonstrated as true by linking to a dictionary that showed that definition.
Coming from the same guy that accuses me of being pedantic, be it as it may if your definition of principles is false then so is your definition of morality by default because it includes principles and no you haven’t provided a dictionary supporting your definition of principles until you do so my argument still stands.
Secondly, do you even know what valid and sound mean in regards to a syllogism? Because you certainly don't understand what fallacies are.
Where is that coming from? I said nothing of the sort about fallacies (at least recently).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So is yours considering it includes an “or proposition” you’ve failed to substantiate.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The same process, irrespective of the quality or the validity of the output
Same process as what? I don’t see how you can dismiss validity as a factor in any sense, that’s essentially the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This seems more like an excerpt rather than an explanation.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That’s not the narrative and you know it, the narrative is the meanings of objective/subjective which you actually can find in a dictionary, so please support your definition otherwise have a nice day ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How’s this a lifestyle that leads to eternal happiness. I’m curious to know about Taoism don’t they follow their own code of conduct, also who’s the originator of that religion?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Answering questions with questions is something that you are good at.
I’m sure same can be said about you but if your not going to refer me back to an example of doing this then you leave me no choice but to dismiss the argument because it’s clearly bogus.
Nonetheless, well done....You actually answered my question and gave the correct answer?
You ended that in a question mark, not sure why. Nonetheless answering the call is my forté, you still didn’t answer mine when I demanded a credible source but I guess that’s somewhat telling on its own huh 🤔?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So let me do a Tarik and answer a question with a question.
What are you referring to specifically?
If you wanted to bake a cake, would you use a dictionary as a recipe book?
No, but I would use a dictionary if I wanted to know the meaning of the word cake which would be a more fair comparison considering the narrative is the meaning behind certain words, nice try though 😉.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What I want to know is what source you got your information from? How specific is that for you?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes but the or proposition that’s in question you brought up. Your refusal to answer the call is telling.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
even if I dodged every one of your questions that would tell you nothing about the actual syllogism
So the question regarding the or proposition wouldn’t tell me anything about the syllogism? Then why’d you bring it up?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
morals are definitionally subjective, thats just how morals are, propositional.
You’ve yet to prove this assertion, you can refer back to your “syllogism” all you want but judging by your dodging of the questions surrounding it the only conclusion to draw is the “syllogism” is flawed.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I accepted your definitions of both separately but once you’ve conflated the two that’s the issue here and no the conflating of the two you haven’t defined, I can give you my definition of objective morality if you like but something tells me you already know what that is.
What you don't seem to comprehend is that morality is intrinsically a proposition
What you don’t seem to comprehend is that statement alone is an assertion, even if I admitted that I can’t prove objective morality that doesn’t mean it’s subjective it could mean that neither of the two exists and nihilism is correct.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you define a symmetrical car as a symmetrical road vehicle with an engine, four wheels, and seats for a small number of people, then that definition is problematic as well because once again your using the word in the definition.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well in order to define the word with the adjective added on the words itself can’t be used.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Even if that were true they don’t tell us that everything is the same.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I have already defined - subjective in this context is referring to something which depends on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence, so subjective morality is morality that is dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence.
You used the word in the definition, interesting 🤔.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morality is definitionally of the mind
Are you ever going to support these assertions you make?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What’s the or proposition?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just the definitions of words.... morality is definitionally incapable of being objective.
Now, it could be asserted that, based on a definition of principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." that I'm wrong
I thought you abandoned the former position after recognizing the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ah I'll admit I mispoke there, my syllogism proper, refers that, "All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind" So that refers to princples in a context not talking about scientific principles, but of things asserted to be true because of a mind, for example: Justice - if this was a principle used in a moral system, you are talking about a construct, justice doesn't exist unless their is some sort of agents to want it, and it only exists because of constructs, that's more what I was referring to their, its a specific sort of principle, the ones used to affirm morality, that I'm talking about, and I use this definition:Now, it could be asserted that, based on a definition of principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." that I'm wrong, but the "fundamental truth" part could be in reference to, say, evolution as much as it could be to morality, hence why i specified, used to affirm morality, because that would be talking about the "or proposition"... unless you were to prove that your principle used to affirm morality was the first type of principle, then you'd be right, unless of course that principle doesn't link up to morality without an arbitary link.Then it would be subjective.
Do you remember saying this?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If I am arguing with a theist, such as you, then sure
But you can’t make your case for subjective morality solely based on me, if that’s the case that argument works both ways what would you say if I made the opposite argument If subjective morality does not exist, then objective morality defacto does?
Created: