Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Actually argument is to strong a word. I'm not arguing that they are not valid I just don't accept that they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I retract that argument and my argument now is that the first two options are not valid as defined by Google.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A little like asking how we can consider ourselves really hoopty froods without zaphod beeblebrox as an objective example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why can’t I continue it without repeating myself over and over again?
Well have you tried not repeating yourself? Rephrasing your arguments? Using different words?
During this conversation you asked what I meant by subjective meaning. I explained that humans care about things and that regard by humans is subjective meaning. You didn't say that this regard for the things we care about doesn't exist only that it cannot be "real" meaning. I therefore tried to rephrase my argument. I have in effect been repeating myself in different words because it DOESN'T MATTER what we CALL the regard for things ONLY if it exists. And then we proceeded to pass the 1000 post line and you still haven't addressed my ACTUAL ARGUMENT or its validity because you are too hung up on a definition that you rejected even though I've already suggesting new language to describe it.
What would you like to call the regard in which humans hold the things we care about? If you supply the term I will use it in a new syllogism just for you.
Or we could discuss burden of proof and what sort of statements incur one.
Or we could discuss what makes an argument valid in the first place and here is a news flash for you valid doesn't mean right or even correct. It means logically necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Humor me. Tell me again.Why?
Because you want to continue this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That implies the law is moral, which is a claim you’ve yet to prove, it also implies that every law breaker is held accountable, and don’t get me started on innocent people that are held accountable for crimes they didn’t even commit.
So what you are saying is that the world we observe seems fundamentally unjust?
You know that is exactly what I would expect to see if the universe has no intrinsic meaning, morality or plan baked in. Its almost as if there isn't any objective morality. Almost as if all there is are humans doing their best and often getting things wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think I'd be willing to wait in line for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Teach someone to fish?
The teaching and the learning are both so fundamentally worthwhile for their own sake that even a failed attempt at one is not a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Always the over achiever doing Tarik's homework. Now if he copies you how will I know he has learned the lesson or just being a parrot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we all know what is right and wrong
Then why is there so much disagreement about right and wrong?
its in our conciousness
What is in our conciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Sounds like what people who don’t seem to understand what constitutes a logically valid argument would say.
It would be pretteasy to prove me wrong. Just explain what makes an argument valid or construct a valid argument (like a syllogism) otherwise I'll assume the Dunning Kruger effect and a lot of this conversation will make much more sense to me if not to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then what’s this about a third or many more other options?
Forget it. You don't seem to understand what constitutes a logically valid argument (your preferred definition)and since you cannot spot them it doesn't do to argue with you about what is or is not valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am not arguing in favor of any answer until some answer is demonstrated.
Humans appear to act cooperatively as part of their survival instinct and neither of us can demonstrate more.
In this entire conversation I have not argued that there was more to my personal preferred standard.
I have to say you don't seem to know what makes an argument valid however. You can't even form a basic syllogism. I'm not therefore worried about whether you think some argument is less valid than some argument you haven't actually bothered to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And if nothing exists beyond survival instinct at work and that just tends towards cooperation? If there is no answer beyond that then what? That is where we are in the conversation. No intrinsic meaning or objective morality and humans still cooperate and care for and about each other. So given that you are not arguing for more we are we in agreement fundamentally for the purposes of this conversation? Or is there some larger point you are trying to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Fine just yours then and how have you invalidated ALL OTHERS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That’s because your so hung up on your “third option” that you’ve failed to demonstrate.
Actually all the other options. That's the thing. There are nearly as many beliefs about morality as there are adult autonomous humans. How have you evaluated all of them for validity? How have you validated your preferred concept of morality or being a psychotic nihilist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You asked me if there was a third "valid" option when the options you are already suggesting do not appear to have a sound basis in logic or fact.
If you cannot prove the options you have suggested are valid as defined by Google I will have no choice but to conclude that validity is unimportant in this case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That’s for YOU to validate not me.
I really need to ask if you understand what a burden of proof is, why it is necessary BEFORE your idea is considered valid (and I do mean your idea so long as you are alluding to things you cannot demonstrate even if you are not "arguing that they are true") and if you understand why a claim of what you are calling objective morality requires one and what I have referred to as subjective morality doesn't even if you think it is the wrong term for the proposition I am referring to that we both recognize exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why? You don’t believe in objective morality.Of course I do.I'm just trying to work out the specifics.You know, so I can make sure everyone else is doing it the right way.
I cannot begin to explain why but this puts me in mind of Brad Pitt's performance in inglorious bastards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
>@Tarikwhat’s the third VALID option?Seriously, if you're going to include the word "valid" as a qualifier, you really must explain what you mean by "valid", otherwise random casting for "valid" answers is an utterly pointless guessing game.
I agree whole heartedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No. You brought up a specific point and I asked for clarification. Clarify before we continue.
What exactly isn't valid and why? Also why should we care if it is "valid"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What exactly isn't valid and why? Also why should we care if it is "valid"?
Created:
Posted in:
What do you mean by validate? People do hold other beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In a much as we all imagine our own preferred procustean standard being put into place yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree. First we need a standard however and that standard will be subjectively chosen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
A dichotomy is only a true dichotomy if there is no possible third option. Since it is possible to not believe in objective morality and also not be a psychotic nihilist there must exist at least a third option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
why my answer is no
Is it because you have no idea how to make your point without setting up a false dichotomy between a psychotic nihilist and your personally preferred belief in morality which you still haven't fully explained?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please explain the practical demonstrable difference between moral intuition and moral opinion or explain how any moral opinion is objective. Opinions are definitionally subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know it feels like we are going around in circles anyway. I think it might be easier to just not concern ourselves with nihilists or psychopaths unless they get a large enough lobby together to effect legislation. Does that sound fair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No one involved in the conversation is a nihilist. Unless you are making some argument that someone ought to be and then I would like to know on what grounds?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The TMFRC shop-club is for people who believe their table might be able to be improved by second party analysis.I understand that I have bias-blind-spots. And the only way for me to mitigate these bias-blind-spots is by seeking scathing critiques.
Well stated and I like the idea of a club.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Polytheist-Witch
If I have a perfectly functional table you are under no obligation to use it even if you don't have one but it is a table. If my table is not structurally sound then it is not a table at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What do you think of
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well I'm not mad at 3ru7al for exploring the idea and not necessarily cracking the code for turning an is into an ought. We must give absurd ideas at the minimum required thought to recognize their absurdity in order to be certain that they are absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you IS reading this (THEN) you are de facto motivated to stay alive (continuing to stay alive is your moral goal axiom)(in other words, you are NOT dead and or completely lacking in motivation to stay alive)(IFF) you IS de facto motivated to stay alive (continuing to stay alive is your moral goal axiom) (THEN) you (EITHER) care about the general welfare of at least one other person (OR) you OUGHT to care about the general welfare of at least one other person(AND) (IFF) you care about the general welfare of at least one other person (THEN) you OUGHT to care about the other people required to maintain their general welfare
If this argument can be applied to a bacterium then we might have an is although I'm not sure what edge thinks of that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
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:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then he is making a category error between the information gleaned from applying the scientific method with the goal of ascertaining objective facts about the processes of the human body and the application of those facts for the practical purpose of providing medical care or advise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, we certainly beat the living hell out of Sam Harris.
One wonders if mister Harris would agree with this statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh i think it is in keeping with Hume's guillotine. It still has a baked in goal of self promotion from which we extrapolate promoting others as a part of that self care in a much as no man is an island.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
if you care about yourself, then you ought to care about others. Its that simple.
And there it is. Beautiful, simple, the true first axiom of morality. And it only took us 35 pages of posts to get here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I'll tell you something. You can't say it is right to have a goal without a goal you are referencing.
I mean you can but its nonsense. Itter tosh. Gove it a try and you will see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Except that we have already discussed exhaustively how a goal, like winning at chess or promoting wellbeing, create a right and a wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Right or wrong without a goal would appear to exist in exactly the same way that alien abductions happen. In people's imagination only. If you want to prove it exists as more it is on you. I'm so sorry that I was not perfectly pedantic in my language in that post but by now if you don't know what I mean then you kinda don't seem to be paying attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nothing is right or wrong without a goal.Prove it.
That isn't how this works. You think something can be right or wrong without a goal demonstrate it. I don't have to prove something doesn't exist to dismiss it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why is it right to have a goal is nonsense question. Nothing is right or wrong without a goal. If having a goal is not justification enough for having that goal then there is no justification possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
what goal does every possible goal serve?
No goal fits these criteria that I am personally aware of. Do you intend to suggest one? To... argue for one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
right to have a goal.
This is silly. The goal is what makes it right or wrong. Without a goal there is no right or wrong. Otherwise what are we even talking about?
You are essentially asking what goal does having a goal serve and the answer is literally every possible goal. Every goal is better served by holding it as a goal.
Created: