-->
@Tarik
I'm not sure what I'm supporting other than that humans have systems of accountability. That is an observation not an argument.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you object much more to what I don't support than to what I do.
-->
@zedvictor4
And I already told you that nihilism was a negative position (if objective morality is false).
-->
@Tarik
And I already told you that nihilism was a negative position (if objective morality is false).
So nihilism is a position the way not collecting stamps is a hobby?
-->
@secularmerlin
That is an observation not an argument.
It’s more than just an observation if YOU AGREE with said systems.
what I don't support
We’re literally discussing YOU SUPPORTING “systems of accountability” meaning
In favor of, agree with, stand for, I mean what else could it mean?
I said all this before did you just write it off? That’s the narrative here you don’t have to support such a thing YOU CHOOSE to and I’m asking why? You’re refusal to answer the call is why I gave my voting example because it’s a representation of ignorance.
-->
@Tarik
It’s more than just an observation if YOU AGREE with said systems.
I think you might be overstating my argument here.
YOU CHOOSE
If this is the operative objection you have then I can resolve it. I didn't choose to care about human wellbeing any more than I chose to be human. I do feel that human wellbeing (a standard not a system by the way and the only one I really have mentioned "supporting") is preferable to harm to humans but I don't choose to think wellbeing is preferable I just don't like to be harmed and I'm not sure why I would have to justify not liking getting hurt.
We’re literally discussing YOU SUPPORTING “systems of accountability” meaning
Again this overstates my argument. I observe human systems of accountability. Are you arguing that such systems don't exist?
-->
@secularmerlin
I didn't choose to care
Yes you do, if you saw no value in human life you wouldn’t care for them period.
-->
@Tarik
Yes you do, if you saw no value in human life you wouldn’t care for them period.
I don't choose to see value in human life any more than I choose to breath.
-->
@secularmerlin
But you do choose to interact with them.
-->
@Tarik
But you do choose to interact with them.
You mean I "choose" to get out of bed in the morning rather than lay in a pool of my own coagulating fluids? Is that really a choice though?
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything’s a choice the why’s of them all is the interesting part.
A large body of research shows that solitary confinement causes adverse psychological effects and increases the risk of serious harm to individuals who experience it.
Apparently the NEED for human interaction is not entirely unlike the NEED for air or food or sleep.
-->
@Tarik
Everything’s a choice
Bald assertion. If beliefs are a choice then please demonstrate by choosing to believe something, anything, that you do not currently believe.
the why’s of them all is the interesting part.
Does why become uninteresting if we simply believe what we find convincing rather than choosing to be convinced? Indeed how is choosing to be convinced not a nonsense idea? You can't just choose to believe as I do. You might be convinced by my arguments or not but you will not just choose on a whim.
-->
@secularmerlin
But do we need air, food, or sleep? Or it only seems that way because survivals your goal?
-->
@Tarik
But do we need air, food, or sleep? Or it only seems that way because survivals your goal?
In as much as survival is in fact a goal at all I present this syllogism.
IF a human disregards their needs THEN they will likely die.
It is therefore not surprising that all living humans do not disregard their own needs and they need each other.
This means that LIVING humans caring about each other rather than disregarding other humans and their wellbeing is a logical necessity more than a goal.
You say you are mostly concerned with the "why" of it. That is ok but you cannot suggest anything as a potential cause until you demonstrate that it actually exists.
That means that whatever the "why" is and even if we cannot determine what the "why" this syllogism is true.
IF we cannot demonstrate any higher power THEN it is unreasonable to assume that a higher power is the reason people care about one another.
I understand that you are not going to be demonstrating a higher power and I respect that you can admit that you cannot. I think that is intellectually honest. However IF you cannot demonstrate one and IF you demand some hypothesis THEN we must still form our hypothesis based on things we can demonstrate.
This may mean that we don't get any satisfactory answer. I understand that can be confusing and uncomfortable. How it makes us feel doesn't change the facts though.
-->
@secularmerlin
In as much as survival is in fact a goal at all I present this syllogism.
But death is also a goal, and what if you have no goals in regards to life or death?
-->
@Tarik
But death is also a goal, and what if you have no goals in regards to life or death?
IF a human disregards their needs THEN they will likely die.
It is therefore not surprising that all living humans tend not disregard their own needs and they need each other.
This means that LIVING humans caring about each other rather than disregarding other humans and their wellbeing is a logical necessity more than a goal.
-->
@secularmerlin
is a logical necessity more than a goal.
Aren’t you among the ones that agreed with the premise you can’t derive an ought from an is?
-->
@Tarik
Aren’t you among the ones that agreed with the premise you can’t derive an ought from an is?
I'm not constructing an ought. I'm not saying human beings ought to look out for each others wellbeing I'm saying that it is completely unremarkable that they do because the likely alternative would be that there are no humans.
Humans don't live TO care for each other they live BECAUSE they care for each other.
-->
@secularmerlin
Calling an emotion logically necessary is an ought.
-->
@secularmerlin
My consciousness exists, and it is me.
That's it.
-->
@Tarik
IF humams have emotions and IF there are humans THEN it is logically necessary that emotions exist.
Are you asking why humans exist or why they have emotions?
Listen this isn't entirely Unlike asking "why is a soap bubble round?"
Sure there is a simple (or comparatively simple) surface answer which is that given the laws of physics as we observe them it is unlikely or perhaps even impossible for then to form in any other configuration. That however does beg the question "why do the laws of physics behave as we observe them to?" and while that us an interesting philosophical question if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves I don't think we can actually answer that question.
Are you asking why humans exist or why they have emotions?
Listen this isn't entirely Unlike asking "why is a soap bubble round?"
Sure there is a simple (or comparatively simple) surface answer which is that given the laws of physics as we observe them it is unlikely or perhaps even impossible for then to form in any other configuration. That however does beg the question "why do the laws of physics behave as we observe them to?" and while that us an interesting philosophical question if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves I don't think we can actually answer that question.
We as humans struggle enough with the undersstanding the how of things. The why may just be beyond our understanding.
So IF we don't know why humans care about things SHOULD we stop caring about things (assuming we even can stop)?
-->
@janesix
My consciousness exists, and it is me.That's it.
Virtually identical to my own it would seem.
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe I am you.
-->
@janesix
Maybe.
-->
@secularmerlin
So IF we don't know why humans care about things SHOULD we stop caring about things (assuming we even can stop)?
If there’s no afterlife I would say so, no reason to care is enough reason not to.
-->
@Tarik
If there’s no afterlife I would say so, no reason to care is enough reason not to.
What reason do you have to care if there’s an afterlife?
-->
@Tarik
If there’s no afterlife
This still doesn't get at the heart of why a soap bubble is round. You can't demonstrate any afterlife (or at least you aren't going to) so you at least don't have any observable reason to care and it still leaves us with the question "why would an afterlife constitute a reason to care?"
-->
@Double_R
Wanting to be rewarded and not punished.
-->
@secularmerlin
don't have any observable reason to care
But I said that already.