Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#331
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Prove that you are not this obtuse? I can't only you can. If you really truly can't separate an opinion about something from the actual thing then you are very obtuse and if you can then you are pretending not to understand that when I say you have moral opinions these opinions are not objective morality. Indeed so far we are engaged in a discussion where neither of us is even arguing that there is any objective morality. 

I can have an opinion about a tree. The opinion is not a tree.


#332
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I can have an opinion about a tree. The opinion is not a tree.
But in this case you CAN’T have an opinion on morality, that’s the difference.

How’s that for obtuse? You wanna get personal with me? I can go there if you want.
Topic's author
#333
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
But in this case you CAN’T have an opinion on morality, that’s the difference
Prove it.
#334
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Prove it.
You can’t prove a negative, one of the many rules of logic but maybe you’re too OBTUSE to understand 😛 .
Topic's author
#335
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot prove it then you cannot meet your burden of proof that it is impossible. 

Still I'll admit to a bit of morbid curiosity so I'll play along for perhaps a few more posts.

Why can't you (not me you) have opinions about morality?

#336
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If you cannot prove it then you cannot meet your burden of proof that it is impossible. 
Negative claims don’t have the burden of proof.

Why can't you (not me you) have opinions about morality?
Because it’s not an opinionated subject, next question.
Topic's author
#337
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot prove it then you cannot meet your burden of proof that it is impossible. 
Negative claims don’t have the burden of proof.
Yrs they do or the statement there is no god requires no burden of proof but I was just picking on you and returning your attitude of obtuse and pedantry so it isn't really important right now.
Why can't you (not me you) have opinions about morality?
Because it’s not an opinionated subject, next question.
Subjects are not opinionated people are. I have a hunch that isn't really what you mean. I really don't want to put words in your mouth but I feel like the progression you are following is this one.

You cannot have opinions about morality because morality is not a thing you can have opinions about. This is circular and so does not explain your statement. Why is morality a thing you cannot have opinions about?

"Morality is cooler than the Fonze" is not an opinion? Or it is an opinion and I'm not allowed to think so?
#338
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Yrs they do or the statement there is no god requires no burden of proof
So you believe that statement requires burden of proof? Okay I’ll bite prove it.
Topic's author
#339
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I am not trying to prove there is no god I just don't believe there is one. I don't have to prove I don't believe it. That is in fact my whole point. You have been very critical of my language in this discussion (surely for the sake of clarity and not just being difficult) I am just trying to do you the same service. 

Do you see the difference between "there are no gods" and "I don't believe in any gods"?

How about the difference between "there are no opinions regarding morality" and "I don't believe there are any opinions about morality"?

And hey is the statement "morality is as cool as the Fonze" an opinion or not? Am I allowed to think that morality is as cool as the Fonze or not?
#340
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
And hey is the statement "morality is as cool as the Fonze" an opinion or not? Am I allowed to think that morality is as cool as the Fonze or not?
I don’t know, but even if I agreed regarding this example you haven’t said anything like this before when discussing morality, instead you said things about disagreeing with it and that’s not opinionated that’s just objectively wrong.
Topic's author
#341
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I think I may be able to cut right to the chase by reviewing where we are at at this moment in your argument. Maybe not but it is worth a try.

You are not arguing that there is a god so I can safely dismiss the idea as the default on any undemonstrated claim can be dismissed and you are disinclined to prove it. Remember that is part of my most basic axiom. 

You are arguing that if there is no god there can be no objective morality and I have already dismissed god so I  can also dismiss objective morality. 

The alternative to objective morality is to you definitionally nihilism. If nihilism is logically necessary (and your argument so far supports that) then you and I are both nihilists. Which does not stop you from trying your best to be your own personal idea of what a good person is like, which is clearly not a moral opinion so I'm not sure what to call it. You clearly fall short of that idea and you don't think the idea you have is perfect but you are trying. These are also not moral opinions and I'm not sure what it makes them. 

It also does not stop me from trying my best to be my own personal idea of what a good person is like, which I maintain is a moral opinion unless you can otherwise explain the phenomenon. I clearly fall short of that idea and I don't think the idea I have is perfect but I am are trying. These are also, I maintain, moral opinions unless you can explain what it is they in fact are. 

I am not advocating for anything I can not prove exists I am just being told that I am using the wrong words. I  kindly ask you to take the concept I have in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
#342
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If nihilism is logically necessary (and your argument so far supports that) then you and I are both nihilists.
No, I’m gonna have to stop you right there, you can speak for yourself but don’t speak for me, I am NOT and I repeat NOT a nihilist, and that’s regardless of whether or not nihilism is true. But if it turns out I’m wrong and it is true than I guess you were right all along and I’m just too OBTUSE to understand and/or accept it.
Topic's author
#343
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No, I’m gonna have to stop you right there, you can speak for yourself but don’t speak for me, I am NOT and I repeat NOT a nihilist, and that’s regardless of whether or not nihilism is true. But if it turns out I’m wrong and it is true than I guess you were right all along and I’m just too OBTUSE to understand and/or accept it.
Then on what grounds do you assert that I am a nihilist? 
#344
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t, but if you wanna call yourself that 🤷🏾‍♂️ .
Topic's author
#345
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I told you that I do not self identify as a nihilist. At the beginning of the conversation.
I can agree to let you self identify if you afford me the same courtesy.

#346
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I told you that I do not self identify as a nihilist. At the beginning of the conversation.
Yeah well you also said this

you and I are both nihilists
And it isn’t the first time you’ve uttered something along those lines, nonetheless I never asserted yourself as a nihilist (don’t know why you brought both points up).


#347
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Still going strong

But still the same old word games Tarik.
#348
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
That’s all you got? Goodbye zedvictor4
Topic's author
#349
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Yeah well you also said this

you and I are both nihilists
What other conclusion am I supposed to think you are reaching when you say that nihilism is the only aalternative to a universal system of punishment and reward that we are agreeing to dismiss for the purposes of the conversation. I thought you were calling us both nihilists. If we can agree that neither of a nihilist then I'm sure we can forget about any perceived mislabeling. 

That out of the way I  kindly ask you to take the concept I have referred in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
#350
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Fallacy how’s that?

Topic's author
#351
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I  kindly ask you to take the concept I have referred in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
#352
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Fallacy how’s that?

Topic's author
#353
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So, and just to be clear, your very best attempt at discerning right from wrong is a fallacy?
#354
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If nihilism is true yes.
Topic's author
#355
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
For the purposes of this conversation you have defined nihilism as being true if there is no objective morality and conceded that there is in fact no objective morality. 

For the purposes of this conversation you have in effect argued that nihilism is true.

Your current position unless something about your argument changes, is that your very best attempt at discerning right from wrong is a fallacy. 

Do you have anything to add or reconsider?
#356
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
conceded that there is in fact no objective morality. 
You gotta a quote from me?

For the purposes of this conversation you have in effect argued that nihilism is true.
Correction I argued IF nihilism is true, keyword IF. My willingness to argue for the other side is what makes me a little more open minded than you.
Topic's author
#357
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You are not however arguing that there is any god or any objective morality. You were very clear on those points. 

Unless you are actually arguing that there IS objective morality in which case you will have a burden of proof to support. 

So here we are at your most basic axiom despite your struggling so hard against revealing it.

Are you claiming that some objective morality exists and therefore assuming a burden proof for that claim or are you conceding that your very best attempt to discern right from wrong is a fallacy?
#358
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m arguing that either objective morality or nihilism is correct question is which one is it?
Topic's author
#359
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I’m arguing that either objective morality or nihilism is correct question is which one is it?
While I consider this a false dichotomy I must remind you, yet again, that unless you are arguing for objective morality then you are conceding that there is none.

Your current argument does not support objective morality unless you alter it somehow.

IF your only two options are objective morality and nihilism and IF you are not claiming objective morality THEN you are left with nihilism. 
#360
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Objective morality and nihilism are both suppositions....As such they can neither be correct nor incorrect.

And one assumes that your suppositions are based upon a primary supposition, that also cannot be proven to be either correct or incorrect.

So all very fallacious and not particularly axiomatic.