Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF we cannot demonstrate any objective meaning THEN we should not care about human life including our own life.
True or false?
We cannot demonstrate any objective meaning.
True or false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Perhaps I can offer a shortcut.
I have baeed my logical necessity from your argument on just two things you have asserted. I'll post them now and you tell me what I'm getting wrong ok?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I have already explained it but if you feel like you are being somehow misrepresented then you are more than welcome to repeat your argument as I have repeatedly posted mine.
Created:
Posted in:
Answer my question.What’s logically inconsistent about MY ACTUAL WORDS?
The idea they convey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What’s logically inconsistent about MY ACTUAL WORDS?
IF the logical conclusion of your argument is logically inconsistent or incorrect THEN your original argument is flawed.
If you are being misrepresented somehow feel free to restate your argument as I have repeatedly repeated mine for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This isn't a game it is a clarification. If I understand your argument it leads to the logical necessity of not caring about your own life or death even if there is objective meaning BECAUSE we cannot demonstrate it. We cannot demonstrate it if it exists and we cannot demonstrate it if it doesn't exist.
SO
IF an inability to PROVE objective morality = humans shouldn't care about anything even their own lives AND ID humans are unable to PROVE objective morality it no longer matters from a practical standpoint if objective reality DOES exist. We cannot demonstrate it so we shouldn't care.
In as much as I don't really accept the premise that people should/shouldn't care based on some probably imaginary "objective" meaning in the first place but IF we come to the same practical observation, that whether it exists or not there is no PROOF of any objective meaning THEN what practical difference would its existence make? We cannot PEOVE it THEREFORE we should not care. That is not my argument. It is yours.
IF it is logically necessary to mo longer desire to live if you cannot DEMONSTRATE objective meaning AND you cannot demonstrate objective meaning then it REMAINS logically necessary even if there is some objective meaning we and we cannot demonstrate it.
Created:
Posted in:
You don't have to say it if it is a logical necessity granting what you did say.But it’s not.
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
IS this your argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
YOU saying “whether or not” is not following my conclusion because I never said or implied anything remotely close, therefore by definition it’s a lie period.
You don't have to say it if it is a logical necessity granting what you did say.
SO IF and ONLY IF
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
This is your argument
THEN and ONLY THEN my first premise and conclusion BASED on YOUR argument.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
My second premise and conclusion BASED on my first premise and conclusion which are BASED on YOUR argument.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
This syllogism is logically sound IF and ONLY IF we accept YOUR initial argument.
IF it leads to an uncomfortable or confusing conclusion and you don't like it change your initial argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Following YOUR syllogism to its logical conclusion is NOT lying.
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
IF this is your argument THEN I would like to address it. IF it isnot I would like to know what your actual argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because I didn’t say it.
Please be specific. What did you not say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s a lie if it’s on my behalf.
Even if I had made some statement on your behalf, which I don't recall doing, I don't see how the statement being made on a particular persons behalf would have ANY effect on its truth value.
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
IF this is your argument THEN I would like to address it. IF it isnot I would like to know what your actual argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And how does flat out lying on my behalf accomplish that?
I was going to ignore this bald assertion/ad hominem attack but since you insist five. When and how did I lie?
Be careful IF I made a syllogism THEN it is conditional statement not a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
IF this is your argument THEN I would like to address it. IF it isnot I would like to know what your actual argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do you need such a thing after I already provided you MY premise and conclusion?
In order to evaluate your premise and conclusion for logical inconsistency.
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
Is this your argument or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF we cannot demonstrate our lives have objective meaning THEN we should not care about anything including our own life or death.
Is this your argument or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You cannot have one without the other. Every IF begs an IF NOT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
This is the whole post. Let's examine it together shall we?
Firstly YOUR argument.
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.
If these are not your words or if you feel that they are incorrect please let me know.
Then my first premise and conclusion BASED on YOUR argument.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
My second premise and conclusion BASED on my first premise and conclusion which are BASED on YOUR argument.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
This syllogism is true IF and ONLY IF we accept your initial argument.
In other words in claiming that "if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire" you have essentially claimed that it makes no sense to have the desire REGARDLESS of whether or not any actual objective meaning exists.
My syllogism is based on YOUR argument. It is an evaluation of YOUR logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
This is the logical conclusion of YOUR argument. This is where your argument leads so if you don't agree you need to change your argument not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why’d you make it smart guy?
What are you talking about? Like seriously.
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.
This is equally true whether or not any objective morality exists.
The above is an argument for why we should care even if there is no larger intrinsic meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Any argument that we shouldn't care, whether meaning exists or not, is self defeating. If you shouldn't care then why are you arguing?
Also a should doesn't come from an is.
You should care.
Why?
Because objective meaning exists.
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't actually logically follow. You haven't actually explained the link between objective meaning and caring. Just si we are clear the implied reverse is true.
You shouldn't care.
Why?
Because there is no objective meaning.
This does nothing to explain why I shouldn't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Firstly if nihilism is just the rejection of on particular type of claim then it is not a position in and of itself. Secondly I did warn you that even if I indulged your definitions my actual argument would not actually change.
You have constructed a small box in which, definitionally meaning cannot exist. You have not done this by showing that what I most generally refer to as meaning doesn't exist but simply by refusing to accept any definition of meaning whatever, including yours effectively since you A won't define it and B can't demonstrate it.
The truth is I still find the idea of objective meaning self contradictory and you haven't shown how one can ever have meaning without some standard upon which we judge that meaning.
If you don't want to call humans caring about stuff meaning and you don't want to call humans caring for each other morality that is fine but whatever you call them they are enough. You haven't argued me out of caring and I don't take your "argument that nihilism is true" very seriously and not only because you don't actually believe it but also because it is a logically flawed idea to begin with.
Nihilism is true is a nonsense statement if nihilism is just the rejection of an unfalsifiable claim.
You know how I know? Because the same holds true for atheism. It isn't itself a claim, only the rejection of an unfalsifiable claim so it nonsensical to say it is true or false.
We should be evaluating the claims they reject to see if those are true or false.
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.
This is equally true whether or not any objective morality exists.
This syllogism will still be true when you decide you are interested in having a conversation instead of stopping a conversation from getting too uncomfortable and confusing for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My position and beliefs remain completely unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why’d you ask me that?
It's just been a very long and strange ride.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So having a survival instinct is "silly" under your paradigm and using your definitions and would remain so even if there were objective meaning although we have agreed that there in fact is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There is no objection, you conceded, we’re good.
I've conceded that under your model there is no possible reason which is not silly to have a survival instinct. I've also conceded that we have them anyway and that so long as we do
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.
This is equally true whether or not any objective morality exists.
I feel like at least one of us is missing some implication of the others argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
All those extra words just to basically say the same thing 🥱.
Please explain your specific objection. Do the conclusions not logically follow the premises?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
All the legs of my table if you please.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
IF and ONLY IF.
IF demonstrating some objective meaning is necessary in order for having a survival instinct to "make sense" and IF you cannot demonstrate some objective meaning THEN your survival instinct "makes no sense" EVEN IF there is objective meaning.
Or in other words believing in an objective morality you cannot objectively prove does not solve the problem you seem to think we now share FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't actually concede that it makes no sense. It makes perfect sense that if there are alive things that they would try to stay alive. It is what we expect from observing alive things.
I would actually be much more surprised to see any particular type of lifeform survive to become a species if they did not "care about things". We are shaped by our environment to be what we are. The environment would seem not to have any particular goal but instead just to be mostly the product of mindless natural forces.
That makes the most likely and sufficient answer to the question "why do we care" by virtue of being the only demonstrable observable cause is that we care because it is how we survive.
What more of an answer are you looking for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.That doesn’t logically follow
It does if you cannot demonstrate any objective meaning. If you examine two out of six legs from my table as though the other four don't exist then sure it doesn't logically follow. But here is ALL of what I said.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful.
IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to nihilism?
Why shouldn't you? You don't need a larger justification in order to struggle to stay alive. ALL organisms struggle to stay alive or do not pass on their genes as effectively (or at all) and those organisms WILL disappear leaving behind only organisms that DO struggle to stay alive. A preference for life is very nearly necessitated by being alive.
Do you see the difference between saying "people should/shouldn't care about staying alive" and "(many) people do care about staying alive"?
Should/shouldn't doesn't enter into it. Only does/doesn't.
IF you does want to keep living THEN you does. This is an inescapable tautology. I'm not even making any real observations here.
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.
This is equally true whether or not any objective morality exists.
Anyway IF there is no reason to care THEN there is also no reason not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to what I’m arguing, which is under nihilism you shouldn’t care.
Since we defacto agree that there is no objective meaning or morality and I don't really have any problems with observing my syllogism based on nothing more than my desire to stay alive this is more your problem than mine. Why do you care in the context of at minimum soft nihilism and the admission that we cannot demonstrate any intrinsic meaning?
IF we shouldn't care about anything UNLESS you can demonstrate some objective meaning AND IF you cannot demonstrate any objective meaning THEN you should not care about anything.
Do you care about anything?
You can post whatever you want but you can't lie to yourself.
IF you are alive AND IF you care to continue doing so THEN my syllogism applies even "under nihilism".
So the question is simply this.
ARE you alive and DO you wish to continue doing so?
If the answer inside you is yes and there is no intrinsic meaning then there is nothing to stop you from observing my syllogism just for the hell of it because life seems preferable to death.
IF there is no available explanation for why any given organisms find life preferable to death BUT they observably struggle to remain alive THEN my syllogism still applies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF you careAnd what IF you don’t, then what?
IF you are not alive THEN you would appear to be incapable of wanting or caring about anything and so this syllogism does not apply to you whether or not there is any objective morality.
And
IF you are alive BUT you do not care about continuing to live or have the active goal of ending your life then barring some outside interference then you will probably not be alive much longer and so this syllogism does not apply to you whether or not objective morality exists.
However
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/african 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.
This is equally true whether or not any objective morality exists. So how about it. Are you alive? Do you care to continue being alive? Well then whether or not objective morality exists may I recommend caring about others as part of the necessary self care needed to stay alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even if you put the word IF in front? Because what IF I stated my syllogism with IF fallacies are logical then? It makes fallacies as logical a possibility.
That gives the implied reverse syllogism.
An "IF fallacies are logical" begs a "IF fallacies are not logical". In any case logical fallacies are definitionally illogical. It is literally a flaw in ones logic.
So
OF fallacies are logical (to you) THEN you do not understand what makes something a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No I don’t see any problems with what if propositions because there limitless in making anything a possibility even fallacies.
This is self contradictory. Logical fallacies and only fallacies are structural weaknesses in syllogisms. If it contains some logical fallacy then it is flawed. If you cannot point out any flaws we must consider it a valid logical syllogism. IF you are alive and IF you wish to continue doing so. Only you can say if you care to continue to be alive. The reason you wish to continue living is immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My syllogism is unaffected by nihilism. It is equally true whether morality actually exists or only survival of the fittest.
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/african 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your questioning is circular being an objectively moral person is what you should be doing, and don’t ask me how you do that because that was never my argument in this discussion.
Actually your answer is circular and that is a much bigger problem if you care about the logical validity of your statement. In any case it is unhelpful to prescribe being objectively moral without a definition of what you mean in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
And you have missed the point again.You clearly don’t have one.
This was is and remains my point.
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/african 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.
This is my table. It has eight legs. Let me know if you see any problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let's say there isno subjective morality and no objective morality. Then what? What practical advice would you then like to offer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
He is actually likening santa claus to objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
This does not in essence answer my question. Is there a right to life or only a privilege of life that may possibly be earned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality.Furthermore, (IFF) it is only possible to have opinions about "objectively extant real true facts" (THEN) our opinions themselves are proof-positive that morality is an "objectively extant real true fact"this is sort of an ontological argument for platonic morality.Oh, right, I forgot to mention this exact same type of ontological argument also proves that bigfootlochnessspacealiens are "objectively extant real true fact".
Indeed it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
no right gives you the free access to a residence, a job, your education, or your purchasing power, void of the responsibilities you, yourself, must bring to the table to deserve those commodities.
IF all these things are necessary to live and we have a substantive right to life then we do deserve these things definitionally. One is afforded rights. One earns privileges. Would you be more comfortable with the privilege to live or the right to live?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do we agree that no subjective morality exists?
Opinions about morality exist and human systems of accountability including personal systems of self accountability exist. Human behavior exists and most humans, with a few outliers that are to young too old too sick or too mentally unbalanced do care for and about other humans.
I don't care what you call it and I'm not arguing for more.
Forget about subjective morality for a moment and focus on the concepts instead.
I can say I call that subjective morality and you can say that those don't count as morality at all but the basic concepts remain unchanged regardless of what we call them.
Its odd. I have given you specific and precise definitions and your objection is to the wording I would use to refer to it. In contrast you have given several terms and no adequate definition of them so my objection is that you are not being clear what you mean regardless of your wording.
For the sake of getting on with it (so long as you do not try to change my basic argument about human behavior or put words in my mouth sure nothing you would define as subjective morality exists and nothing you would define as objective morality exists FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION.
So since you are the one who is hung up on the whys and wherefores I'll put it to you.
In light if the fact that neither subjective nor objective morality exists why do you care about anything and how without any objective or subjective morality do you justify caring about anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.
IF we agree that no objective morality exists (as we have defacto agreed) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions THEN opinions must not require objective morality (or objective meaning since we agree on that in the same defacto manner).
Here is my table. It has three legs. Please let me know if you see any specific structural problems.
To facilitate this process here is the reverse necessary syllogism.
IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right? Here I'll even do the work for you.
Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
There may not be any valid stance at all. None whatever. Opinions about morals(the opinions we have about morality not morality itself which is a nonstarter as you have defined it) are opinions and opinions are not logically valid as only arguments can be.
In fact in as much as neither of us is arguing that "real" morality exists we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation cinversation that they do not in fact exist. Since that would leave only opinions and only about a thing that isn't even real we must conclude that there are no valid positions to hold on morality.
I have made the necessary corrections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident.
Perhaps it would facilitate the conversation to state plainly exactly what that difference is, how we can FUNCTIONALLY tell the difference between the two states of affairs and what, if any, specific course of action this would seem to dictate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
There may not be any valid stance at all. None whatever. Moral opinions (the opinions we have about morality not morality) are opinions and opinions are not logically valid as only arguments can be.
In fact in as much as neither of us is arguing that "real" morality exists we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation cinversation that they do not in fact exist. Since that would leave only opinions and only about a thing that isn't even real we must conclude that there are no valid positions to hold on morality.
Created: