-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.....I would call it, assumed morality.
Sounds like nihilism to me.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@secularmerlin
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?
Why? I never said that.
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.
I said nothing about God or morality in my argument, the fact that you keep finding things that aren’t there is telling.
IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe
You can’t demonstrate something that’s subjective, that’s why the latter position is nihilism.
-->
@Tarik
Nope.....I would call it, assumed morality.Sounds like nihilism to me.
Would you call it UNVERIFIABLE MORALITY?
Or perhaps, FAITH-BASED MORALITY?
-->
@3RU7AL
Probably when you (indirectly) suggested the only alternative to your table is NIHILISM.
I addressed that already.
And everybody knows NIHILISM killed a bunch of people and makes babies cry.
How do you prove that shouldn’t happen?
Would you call it UNVERIFIABLE MORALITY?Or perhaps, FAITH-BASED MORALITY?
Those are two opposite things.
-->
@Tarik
IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universeYou can’t demonstrate something that’s subjective, that’s why the latter position is nihilism.
Apparently you also can't demonstrate something that's OBJECTIVE (specifically "objective morality").
Your two options "nihilism" and "objective morality" are functionally indistinguishable (both equally undemonstrated).
-->
@Tarik
And everybody knows NIHILISM killed a bunch of people and makes babies cry.How do you prove that shouldn’t happen?
Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?
-->
@3RU7AL
You don’t have to demonstrate nihilism because it’s a negative position.
-->
@Tarik
Would you call it UNVERIFIABLE MORALITY?Or perhaps, FAITH-BASED MORALITY?Those are two opposite things.
They are functionally and definitionally indistinguishable.
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to demonstrate nihilism because it’s a negative position.
Then why do you keep asking for proof of "subjective morality" (which you define as synonymous with "nihilism")?
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?
Pardon me, how do you prove that should be avoided?
They are functionally and definitionally indistinguishable.
Even if that is true we were talking about zedvictor4’s perspective not mine and he doesn’t have faith BTW.
-->
@Tarik
They are functionally and definitionally indistinguishable.Even if that is true we were talking about zedvictor4’s perspective not mine and he doesn’t have faith BTW.
I'm quite certain @zedvictor4 has FAITH in human survival instinct (which is the foundation of human cooperation incentives which is also known as "morality").
-->
@Tarik
Are you asking me to "prove a negative"?Pardon me, how do you prove that should be avoided?
People will die and babies will cry but how much and or how little and or for how long and or at what rate has nothing to do with whether or not somebody believes in heaven and or hell (which is your definition of "objective morality" which is your definition of "the opposite" of "nihilism").
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm quite certain @zedvictor4 has FAITH in human survival instinct (which is the foundation of human cooperation incentives which is also known as "morality").
Pardon me, that’s not what I thought you meant when you said “faith based”.
Then why do you keep asking for proof of "subjective morality" (which you define as synonymous with "nihilism")?
Did I? Do you have a quote?
People will die and babies will cry but how much and or how little and or for how long and or at what rate has nothing to do with whether or not somebody believes in heaven and or hell
...Okay? I didn’t ask for all that, the fact that you came to that all on your own is telling.
Then why do you keep asking for proof of "subjective morality" (which you define as synonymous with "nihilism")?Did I? Do you have a quote?
IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universeYou can’t demonstrate something that’s subjective, that’s why the latter position is nihilism.
Are you suggesting that it can't be true because it can't be demonstrated?
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.
-->
@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.
-->
@3RU7AL
I called it a latter position, that’s not an equivalency.
Are you suggesting that it can't be true because it can't be demonstrated?
Ultimately yes but when I first said it I was just denying the claim that it was demonstrated before.
-->
@secularmerlin
So that's a no on explaining how your argument is not circular? Cool I'll just consider it circular then.
You can’t take a quote that’s not mine and expect me to defend it as if it is.
So that's a no on pointing out any structural flaws in my argument? Cool I'll just consider it sound then.
The flaw is you flat out LIED, about my argument and you demonstrating subjectivity.
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.
Okay but it’s not contingent on subjective meaning either, and you’ve yet to demonstrate what that even is.
-->
@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.
-->
@secularmerlin
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?
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that it can't be true because it can't be demonstrated?Ultimately yes
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?
-->
@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.
-->
@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.
-->
@Tarik
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.Okay but it’s not contingent on subjective meaning either, and you’ve yet to demonstrate what that even is.
This bridge looks promising.
Humans caring for and about each other is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT that is not "contingent" on anything.
The term "subjective meaning" is simply a DESCRIPTION of the DEMONSTRABLE FACT.
It is apparently SUBJECTIVE because each person VALUES other individuals near them differently than any person VALUES other individuals near them.
For example, I value my personal friends and family members MORE than you value MY personal friends and family members.
And YOU value YOUR personal friends and family members MORE than I value YOUR personal friends and family members.
One way to describe this generally INDISPUTABLE FACT is "subjective meaning" (OR) "subjective value" (OR) "subjective morality".
-->
@Tarik
I am genuinely and sincerely impressed with your tenacity.
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the difference between
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?
IF I qualify my statements by saying "IF" THEN I am not making any absolute statements only following a premise to a conclusion.
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.
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.
-->
@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?
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.
The term "subjective meaning" is simply a DESCRIPTION of the DEMONSTRABLE FACT.
But demonstrable facts aren’t subjective.
It is apparently SUBJECTIVE because each person VALUES other individuals near them differently than any person VALUES other individuals near them.
But why do we value as a whole is the question you’re not answering.
I am genuinely and sincerely impressed with your tenacity.
I don’t know your intentions but regardless I’ll take that as the utmost compliment.
-->
@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.
-->
@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 ???
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought morality=punishment/reward=meaning?
That’s the consequence and how it’s proven not what it is intrinsically.
IF objective morality exists (and by extension punishment/reward and meaning) THEN
We ought to try to be objectively moral.
This ENTIRE conversation has been about whether meaning is contingent on objective morality or not.
Excuse me but I can’t help but notice you put emphasis on meaning as if it’s subjective so it can’t be completely foreign to assume you’re arguing that it’s contingent on subjective meaning otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to clarify.
IF none of us are nihilists BUT nihilism is correct THEN ???
We’re all ignorant.