-->
@Theweakeredge
(IFF) YOU WANT TO LIVE (THEN) YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO LIVE
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@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.
-->
@secularmerlin
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.
Did we just shatter Hume's Guillotine?
-->
@3RU7AL
What? No... that is applying to Hume's Guillotine.
IF you care about yourself, THEN you should care about others
(hint hint: the hidden goal is that you ought to care about yourself)
-->
@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.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? No... that is applying to Hume's Guillotine.IF you care about yourself, THEN you should care about others(hint hint: the hidden goal is that you ought to care about yourself)
hint hint: the hidden qualifier is that you is alive.
-->
@3RU7AL
you *are alive
second of all - I don't see how that rebukes my point - it doesn't. It also doesn't make you any more believable to be pedantic about things.
-->
@secularmerlin
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.
Well, we certainly beat the living hell out of Sam Harris.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, we certainly beat the living hell out of Sam Harris.
One wonders if mister Harris would agree with this statement.
-->
@Theweakeredge
you *are alivesecond of all - I don't see how that rebukes my point - it doesn't. It also doesn't make you any more believable to be pedantic about things.
IS: YOU ALIVE
OUGHT: CARE ABOUT AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON
-->
@secularmerlin
One wonders if mister Harris would agree with this statement.
Harris argues that morality is objective because medical science is objective.
-->
@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.
-->
@3RU7AL
The goal is staying alive, you are assuming that premise; you ought to stay alive - again, pretty simple stuff
-->
@secularmerlin
mmhm, I would agree - it's a non-sequitur
-->
@secularmerlin
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.
That's what I tried to tell him.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The goal is staying alive, you are assuming that premise; you ought to stay alive - again, pretty simple stuff
IS: YOU ALIVE
IS: YOU DIDN'T DO IT ALONE
OUGHT: CARE ABOUT AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON
ELSE: IF YOU ARE EITHER NOT ALIVE OR DON'T CARE ABOUT STAYING ALIVE YOU WILL NEVER READ THIS
in other words, the exceptions to this tautology automatically disqualify themselves.
-->
@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.
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the thing, the fact that you ought to stay alive in order for your argument to be valid is not dependent on whether or not those people are or are not alive - the point is that there is another ought, and therefore your contention does nothing to destroy the guillotine. In fact, it adheres to the guillotine, this reveals a misunderstanding or a lack of comprehension regarding moral query, not relevant rebuttals.
-->
@secularmerlin
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 a much as no man (ant/zebra/african wild dog/bee) is an island.IF whether or not some [specific individual] 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 [basic human rights] to insure that care in every possible case.This is my table. It has eight legs. Let me know if you see any problems.
This is bleeding genius.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's the thing, the fact that you ought to stay alive in order for your argument to be valid is not dependent on whether or not those people are or are not alive - the point is that there is another ought, and therefore your contention does nothing to destroy the guillotine. In fact, it adheres to the guillotine, this reveals a misunderstanding or a lack of comprehension regarding moral query, not relevant rebuttals.
IS: Being alive AND being motivated to entertain moral questions AND being capable of comprehending abstract concepts.
=
IS: Motivated to continue living.
-->
@3RU7AL
Those are all descriptions of reality, not prescriptions - none of those are oughts - it falls within the guillotine.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Those are all descriptions of reality, not prescriptions - none of those are oughts - it falls within the guillotine.
IS: Being alive AND being motivated to entertain moral questions AND being capable of comprehending abstract concepts.
=
IS: Motivated to continue living.
+
IS: You (EITHER) already care about at least one other person (OR) you
=
OUGHT: CARE ABOUT AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON
-->
@3RU7AL
That is a non-sequitur, simple being motivated to continue living does not tell you if you should, therefore that IS would be changed to an OUGHT, otherwise, the syllogism fails.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a non-sequitur, simple being motivated to continue living does not tell you if you should, therefore that IS would be changed to an OUGHT, otherwise, the syllogism fails.
(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
-->
@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.
-->
@3RU7AL
you are ignoring the fact that we all have that ought goal, it literally doesn't matter if all humans who are alive have it, it only matters that the goal is there, and you are ignoring that. Until you comprehend that basic fact, hume's guillotine will escape you.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the fact that it could be cosidered to apply to a bacterium demonstrates its absurdity.
-->
@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.
-->
@secularmerlin
I would agree, however, the insistence on the same rebuttal - whenever I have repeatedly explained the problem with it gets frustrating.
-->
@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.