Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
The argument goes (or one of them anyway) that rights are well and good but largely meaningless if you don't have the ability to exercise them. Like you can't exercise your right to life if you are dead and you can't exercise your right to liberty if your life is being threatened (explicitly or implicitly) they are not substantive.
So if your life and wellbeing is being (implicitly) threatened by impending eviction from ones home and subsequent starvation if one does not "make a living" then one may be forced into taking whatever job is available no matter how dirty, difficult, dangerous, unfulfilling, no matter how tedious and no matter what end of life security (if any) it offers.
That means that you might have a group of working poor who are paid so little and forced to work such long hours and is so busy maintaining their paycheck to paycheck survival that they simply do not have time for liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
One suggested solution to this is a universal basic income. This is the idea that either everyone would receive an amount of money sufficient to maintain their lives and wellbeing (home, food, medicine etc) or that these considerations would simply be supplied directly.
This has the advantage of being a solution that does not require that we demonetize (do away with exchange mediums) and therefore one requiring less change to existing infrastructure than a purely and perfectly socialist system (in as much as such a thing is feasible).
Now this discussion is not about the relative benefits or disadvantages of socialism but only about the effects (benefits or disadvantages) of instituting some form of U.B.I. as a part of our free market system (just to put an emphasis on free) and what such a system might potentially look like/operate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
for the purposes of this conversation.I love how you want to make this clear now, but you didn’t keep that same energy several posts ago.
This is what I mean by pedantic. Did you forgot about making that distinction because there are some posts in which I do not specifically remind you? Now just so we are clear no souls right? Because you can't demonstrate one so you can't propose one as a cause solution for anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Unless you can demonstrate one then we can dismiss it for the purposes of this conversation. I'm not even going to ask you to define it adequately since you still haven't really defined any of your terms leading up we will just skip that part and assume that you can't or won't define soul either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to their soul not there body.
Let me stop you right there. You know how we have had this whole conversation about how objective meaning cannot be demonstrated? Ok so that but with souls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe it’s because their souls left their body.
Maybe it's because they are dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead.How do you know?
Because you haven't demonstrated it and because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
Well it is.Then what’s the point?
The point of what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The only way you can possibly know it can’t be demonstrated is by knowing what happens when you die, which you don’t.
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
When did I say that ignorance is a reason to give up?
Then what about our mutual ignorance necessarily halts this conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Humans are ignorant about almost everything. If that means we should all just give up then why haven't you?
Created:
Posted in:
Humans are ignorant
Ok... so what?
I DON’T believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved.
Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.That assumes we’re the end all be all in terms of knowledge
It doesn't assume anything. Our knowledge IS the end all be all of our knowledge necessarily.
IF there is some knowledge or truth or fact that we don't have access to THEN it is exactly the same for us as if there is no such knowledge.
How does that help?
and there’s another side I argued that you’re not addressing and that’s nihilism.
IF none of us is a nihilist BUT nihilism is "correct" THEN .. what? What exactly are we to conclude from this?
ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS.It is IF it’s in the form of a greater meaning.
Ok IF there is some greater meaning but we don't have any way to assess it or even determine it exists THEN ???
All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.In that case if there’s no why then there’s no sense in caring.
We observably care even if there is no sense in it. So...
IF there is no sense in caring and IF humans still care about (some) things THEN ???
we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning.No, just because I don’t argue in favor of something that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of it.
Sorry but what does that even mean in practical terms? I mean do you even understand why the nul hypothesis is useful in logic?
If you believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved then you will start to believe all sorts of discordant and contradictory nonsense. For example
IF you believe in objective morality BECAUSE it cannot be disproved THEN you must in order to be consistent in your methodology also believe in the flying spaghetti monster* BECAUSE it cannot be disproved.
That is why you don't have to necessarily make the positive claim that something doesn't exists to dismiss it. On the other hand we don't just assume the existence of things we can't demonstrate especially if they aren't even being argued for.
* and also bigfoot, leprechauns, lochness monster and alien abduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ok. How?I don’t know,
Ok great. So I guess we are done then.
IF neither of us knows of a method of determining any objective morality THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.
Because it would be an answer as to why we care.
ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS. The universe doesn't owe us any answers. All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.
I did, how many times do you want me to repost my argument?
Please do not repost anything. You said you are not arguing FOR objective meaning. Neither am I. Unless something changes about your argument or mine then we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe there is a standard we just need to figure out what it is.
Ok. How?
It’s only no true Scotsman if you proved meaning and I denied it but you haven’t proven a thing.
I understand that you have a definition and you are sticking with it but I haven't proposed anything unobservable. I am ever so sorry for ever suggesting that what people care about might be and has been referred to as meaningful but whatever you call it people do care. Why would there need to be some greater meaning?
I didn’t create that equation you did, and the consequences is in YOUR equation.
So create your own equation. I would be delighted if you actually said something concrete.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I thought morality=punishment/reward=meaning?That’s the consequence and how it’s proven not what it is intrinsically.
What do you think that equation proves and what specifically are the consequences?
We ought to try to be objectively moral.
HAHAHAHAHAHA .. oh. You're serious. Ok how does one go about being objectively moral without a well defined standard?
This ENTIRE conversation has been about whether meaning is contingent on objective morality or not.Okay my bad but what is “meaning” to you?
I don't know what you are asking at this late stage on the game. You have disqualified what people find meaningful from being "real" meamong in a stunning display of the no true scotsman fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Look I’m not making any absolute arguments here in terms of demonstration so if it’s indeed true that neither of those concepts could be demonstrated than nihilism is correct by default, and that’s been my argument for quite awhile now.
Ok. So what? What is the practical actionable takeaway here?
IF none of us are nihilists BUT nihilism is correct THEN ???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t even have to give the whole run down I can easily refute this by pointing out the most obvious which is punishment/reward, are you seriously conflating the two? Or are you just gonna gloss over the fact that they’re polar opposites?
I thought morality=punishment/reward=meaning? If this is not what you meant then I think you had better explain because I have definitely been operating under the assumption that that it is what you mean.
But that’s exactly what I did (when I said IF objective morality were true or IF nihilism were true) yet you criticized me anyway.
IF objective morality exists (and by extension punishment/reward and meaning) THEN ... what?
Please, pretty please, filling this syllogism and we will talk.
Why does it matter what it is contingent on or even if it is contingent on anything?You’re the one that brought up contingency dude I was just answering the call.
This ENTIRE conversation has been about whether meaning is contingent on objective morality or not. This has been your topic of choice in a thread about basic axioms. You could have talked about anything and you chose to lead with meaning is dependent on objective morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so why does one table ("subjective morality") demand rejection because of a lack of demonstration,And simultaneously the other table ("objective morality") demand acceptance because of a lack of demonstration?
Excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IF objective meaning cannot be demonstrated BUT humans caring for and about one another can THEN it would seem that humans caring for and about each other IS NOT contingent on [DEMONSTRATION OR EVIDENCE OF] objective meaning.maybe?
Yes that does seem a less wobbly table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can’t take a quote that’s not mine and expect me to defend it as if it is.
I asked for your quote is FUNCTIONALLY different than mine. What is the difference between
in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded
And
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punishment/reward/meani g
The flaw is you flat out LIED, about my argument and you demonstrating subjectivity.
When and how specifically did I lie?
IF I qualify my statements by saying "IF" THEN I am not making any absolute statements only following a premise to a conclusion.
IF I make a syllogism that says IF proposition A is true and proposition A is not true then say so (along with some sufficient evidence and or necessary counterfactual)
Okay but it’s not contingent on subjective meaning either, and you’ve yet to demonstrate what that even is.
Why does it matter what it is contingent on or even if it is contingent on anything? I'm not really making an argument for why humans care. I am only observing that we do (and to some degree explaining what I care about). You seem to want my argument to mean more than it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let's try another one.
IF there can be no morality or meaning that is not objective and IF there is no observable demonstrable objective morality or meaning THEN it is indistinguishable from there being no morality or meaning and the most rational thing to do is to operate under the assumption that these things do not exist.
And hey one more because I have time.
IF objective meaning cannot be demonstrated BUT humans caring for and about one another can THEN it would seem that humans caring for and about each other IS NOT contingent on objective meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punished/rewarded/meaning.Please explain the difference between these two statements and how either of them is not a circular reasoning fallacy?
So that's a no on explaining how your argument is not circular? Cool I'll just consider it circular then.
My argument (table)IF there exists any morality/punishment/reward/meaning (leg one) and IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg two) THEN we are forced to assess morality/punishment/reward/meaning through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg three)IF and ONLY IF the premesis are true THEN the conclusion is a logical necessity.IF you see any structural issues with my premises THEN please explain exactly what the structural flaw is.
So that's a no on pointing out any structural flaws in my argument? Cool I'll just consider it sound then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punished/rewarded/meaning.
Please explain the difference between these two statements and how either of them is not a circular reasoning fallacy?
I accept your tautology and continue to be completely disinterested in some god(s) moral dictates and unconvinced that they are useful in understanding WHY something is moral or immoral whether any god(s) exists or not. I feel this is a structural issue with your argument. Please repair this leg.
My argument (table)
IF there exists any morality/punishment/reward/meaning (leg one) and IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg two) THEN we are forced to assess morality/punishment/reward/meaning through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg three)
IF and ONLY IF the premesis are true THEN the conclusion is a logical necessity.
IF you see any structural issues with my premises THEN please explain exactly what the structural flaw is.
Created:
Posted in:
Murder us actually wrong definitionally. Murder is by definition the unlawful killing of a person ON PURPOSE. (Doing it by accident is called manslaughter)
Purposefully killing a person is not always murder and the state reserves the right to define murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Never presume malice when (bias blindspot) is sufficient.
Good point. Recommended course of action in those instances?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I have trouble understanding exactly how our positions differ.Great point.It's sort of a hostile version of establishing common ground.PRAXIS is functionally indistinguishable.
Permission to treat the witness as hostile your honor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Specifically, "belief" does not require justification.
No but when your interlocutor insists that yours do without offering any of their own...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are maintaining a double standard and that is intellectually dishonest.Not necessarily. [**]
Please elaborate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam. - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I didn’t argue (completely) in favor of my beliefs
Then you were by definition being a dishonesty interlocutor. When you are ready to make your actual argument feel free to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you justify your beliefs without proof
How do you justify your beliefs without proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No I’m arguing that we’re NOT the same in this regard.
You have asked me repeatedly to justify my beliefs. You cannot justify your own. You are maintaining a double standard and that is intellectually dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your missing a key detail here I BELIEVE there’s evidence
Unless you are arguing that there is evidence and prepared to present it this is a meaningless distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It's really simple. Yes or no do you care about human welfare?Yeah sure what’s your point?
So what you are saying is that you cannot demonstrate or offer evidence of morality/punishment/reward/meaning but that you care about human welfare anyway.
And I cannot demonstra or offer evidence of morality/punishment/reward/meaning but that I care about human welfare anyway.
I wonder if you see why I have trouble understanding exactly how our positions differ. The would not seem to be a demonstrable or observable difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It's really simple. Yes or no do you care about human welfare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a sociopath understands in practical terms that they cannot survive in isolation.
That's true but I'm having trouble getting to the ground floor on this one. Bumpy ride and the elevator keeps going up again even when I push the down button
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I asked you a yes no question. I am paraphrasing here but my question was do you care about human welfare. You did not say yes and the alternative to caring about human welfare is called sociopathy. It has an entry in the DMS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what you are saying is that you are a sociopath?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you of the opinion that promoting human wellbeing is worthwhile?I don’t think anything worthwhile (if there’s such a thing) is opinionated.
This doesn't answer my question.
Also "I don’t think anything worthwhile (if there’s such a thing) is opinionated." Is an opinion.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay... I'm curious who you're addressing here - You realize I do agree that trans people exist right and that we should trust them whenever they self-identify? Because you know your gender and sexual identity better than other people do. I agree, people should have the bodily autonomy in this instance of course.
Then call it a rare case of agreement. It does happen sometimes that someone will support you arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you think human wellbeing is worth promoting?Only if there’s proof of so.
Are you of the opinion that promoting human wellbeing is worthwhile? Is seeing to the health and safety of others worthwhile to you personally outside this conversation something you personally think one ought to do? In real life do you promote health and protect people whenever possible and especially at little cost to yourself?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's almost as if simply being alive is evidence that you've taken some actions to maintain your own life (at a minimum) and maintaining your own life requires some level of cooperation with other humans.
If a person has both sex organs or if they have secondary sex characteristics that contrast with the primary ones? What if their brain is wired biologically for a "feminine" role but has a biologically male body? In each case what is the individual's sex? Perhaps it is complicated enough for us to just take someone's word when they say they are a woman until some clearer metric becomes available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Please define soul as used in this context.
Created:
Whether we are discussing gender roles or biological sex, part of the ambiguity of the situation is caused that it is more of a spectrum than a binary. One might have a "female" brain and a "male" body. Or one might be born with both sex organs. Or the external female sex organs but with male internal sex organs. That these cases are not the statistical norm is not in dispute. Whether this entirely natural consequence of our biology which is entirely out of our control is the issue. Should someone receive less bodily autonomy because they are a statistical anomaly of some kind? Careful that slope is slippery. Everyone is a statistical anomaly of some kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's almost as if simply being alive is evidence that you've taken some actions to maintain your own life (at a minimum) and maintaining your own life requires some level of cooperation with other humans.
Almost.
Created:
Posted in:
my goal becomes to protect others from the offending individual NOT to punish them.Well, how do you go about protecting them 🤔?
That is not the issue under discussion until we actually establish this as the goal and once thus the goal punishment isn't the goal... even if it does turn out to be a consequence of the goal.
THEN the most preferable action is to promote wellbeing and then accept the unjust punishment gracefully and courageously.Prove it.
I start all my syllogisms IF.
When you focus on the conclusion then you aren't actually addressing the arguments at all.
Anyway as I said before this is easier than you seem to think.
One question. Do you think human wellbeing is worth promoting? It doesn't matter if it is you main goal or not it only matters if you think it is preferable to human harm.
So before we continue please answer yes or no. Is human wellbeing (as we are using the term in this discussion) preferable to human harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Tttmttfwtinkm was once responsible for making lighting. Now we have another explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nearly as easily as one can fabricate an answer that one cannot be certain of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It is not necessitated by my goalIt is if one goes against it.
Of my goal is human wellbeing and IF someone is actively trying to undermine human wellbeing THEN my goal becomes to protect others from the offending individual NOT to punish them.
IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.You do in order to avoid punishment.
I don't have to avoid punishment. In fact IF some punishment were threatened and IF the penalty was the consequence of promoting wellbeing THEN the most preferable action is to promote wellbeing and then accept the unjust punishment gracefully and courageously.
Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify.I didn’t apply any labels to anyone but myself.
That is a wise policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I would argue that making people pay and vengeance isn’t necessarily synonymous but regardless of whether or not punishment is your goal, it’s still a repercussion of your goal and that’s noteworthy.
It is not necessitated by my goal but that is a different discussion than if it is necessary eliminated.
But is that a reflection of the system or the community?
Yes. One is inextricable from the other. The community is the source of the system so anything that reflects one is a reflection of the other.
I think we have to get on as best we can without oneWhy? I think if there’s no objective authority over me I don’t HAVE to do anything.
IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.
Also I am not arguing that any objective authority of any kind does exist and in as much as you are not arguing for one you have not given me any alternative.
It doesn’t and I never said as much (you ran with that narrative all on your own) I said that’s what we were discussing just like how we discussed it, discussing something doesn’t make it the case.
Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify. You must admit you didn't like it yourself when I had a misunderstanding with you.
Created: