Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#1021
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
That implies the law is moral, which is a claim you’ve yet to prove, it also implies that every law breaker is held accountable, and don’t get me started on innocent people that are held accountable for crimes they didn’t even commit.
So what you are saying is that the world we observe seems fundamentally unjust? 

You know that is exactly what I would expect to see if the universe has no intrinsic meaning, morality or plan baked in. Its almost as if there isn't any objective morality. Almost as if all there is are humans doing their best and often getting things wrong.
Topic's author
#1022
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Humor me. Tell me again. 
Why?
Because you want to continue this conversation. 
#1023
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Why can’t I continue it without repeating myself over and over again?
#1024
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
But didn't you define "moral" as "behavior that will be rewarded" and "immoral" as "behavior that will be punished"?
In the afterlife.
Sure, of course.

HEAVEN AND HELL AND ALL THAT JAZZ.

THE ONE TRUE SECRET MORAL CODEX = A COMPREHENSIVE CATALOG OF ALL BEHAVIOR AND OR INTENTIONS THAT WILL BE REWARDED AND OR PUNISHED (IN HEAVEN AND OR HELL)

Topic's author
#1025
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Why can’t I continue it without repeating myself over and over again?
Well have you tried not repeating yourself? Rephrasing your arguments? Using different words?

During this conversation you asked what I meant by subjective meaning. I explained that humans care about things and that regard by humans is subjective meaning. You didn't say that this regard for the things we care about doesn't exist only that it cannot be "real" meaning. I therefore tried to rephrase my argument. I have in effect been repeating myself in different words because it DOESN'T MATTER what we CALL the regard for things ONLY if it exists. And then we proceeded to pass the 1000 post line and you still haven't addressed my ACTUAL ARGUMENT or its validity because you are too hung up on a definition that you rejected even though I've already suggesting new language to describe it. 

What would you like to call the regard in which humans hold the things we care about? If you supply the term I will use it in a new syllogism just for you. 

Or we could discuss burden of proof and what sort of statements incur one.

Or we could discuss what makes an argument valid in the first place and here is a news flash for you valid doesn't mean right or even correct. It means logically necessary. 


#1026
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
IS THIS YOUR ARGUMENT?
Topic's author
#1027
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
A little like asking how we can consider ourselves really hoopty froods without zaphod beeblebrox as an objective example. 
#1028
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
A little like asking how we can consider ourselves really hoopty froods without zaphod beeblebrox as an objective example. 
Well stated.
#1029
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
you still haven't addressed my ACTUAL ARGUMENT or its validity
Still waiting on that third VALID option dude.

Or we could discuss what makes an argument valid in the first place and here is a news flash for you valid doesn't mean right or even correct. It means logically necessary.
Well in that case since you’re so certain of the meaning (even though you claimed to not be capable of complete certainty) I guess there’s nothing to discuss in regards to what makes an argument valid, instead you can present your VALID argument in terms of the third option your advocating for.
Topic's author
#1030
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I retract that argument and my argument now is that the first two options are not valid as defined by Google.
Topic's author
#1031
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Actually argument is to strong a word. I'm not arguing that they are not valid I just don't accept that they are.
#1032
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
#1033
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
You haven’t provided any valid alternatives to the alternatives.
Topic's author
#1034
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
There may not be any valid stance at all. None whatever. Moral opinions (the opinions we have about morality not morality) are opinions and opinions are not logically valid as only arguments can be. 

In fact in as much as neither of us is arguing that "real" morality exists we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation cinversation that they do not in fact exist. Since that would leave only opinions and only about a thing that isn't even real we must conclude that there are no valid positions to hold on morality. 
#1035
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation
Yep.
#1036
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Moral opinions
There’s no such thing, if you believe so then you must prove it, otherwise you leave me no choice but to dismiss this argument for the remainder of this discussion.
#1037
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Moral opinions
There’s no such thing,
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT YOUR GOD WANTS ME TO DO?

PLEASE TELL ME, AND BE SPECIFIC, BECAUSE I'M SUPER AFRAID OF GOING TO HELL.
#1038
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Your sarcasm is not appreciated.
Topic's author
#1039
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right? Here I'll even do the work for you.

Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
There may not be any valid stance at all. None whatever. Opinions about morals(the opinions we have about morality not morality itself which is a nonstarter as you have defined it) are opinions and opinions are not logically valid as only arguments can be. 

In fact in as much as neither of us is arguing that "real" morality exists we are defacto agreeing for the purposes of this conversation cinversation that they do not in fact exist. Since that would leave only opinions and only about a thing that isn't even real we must conclude that there are no valid positions to hold on morality. 


I have made the necessary corrections.

#1040
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
1} moral integrity = subjectively applied Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } standards to self and others with a goal of 100% practice, that, if maintained by all individuals, the balance of justice, liberty, freedom fairness is reached at 100% and we have peace and harmony irrespective of standard of living

2} intellectual integrity = subjectively applied, Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } rational, logical common sense thoughts, based on a scientific method of approach to all considerations were confronted with, provided necessary time for reconsideration being allowed, and new nicoming data/info

* i * = I ---Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 }-- exist as an occupied space something with access to the above #1 and #2 via my experiences of occupied space something environment, that, may or may not include others, similar to my bilateral biologic  physiology


#1041
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right?
Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.
Topic's author
#1042
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.
IF we agree that no objective morality exists (as we have defacto agreed) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions THEN opinions must not require objective morality (or objective meaning since we agree on that in the same defacto manner).

Here is my table. It has three legs. Please let me know if you see any specific structural problems.

To facilitate this process here is the reverse necessary syllogism. 

IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality. 


#1043
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right?
Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.
Just because I don't personally believe in santa claus, doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of santa claus and the idea that some people do believe in santa claus.

I can still discuss santa claus and express opinions about santa claus, regardless of my actual lack of faith in the authenticity of stories of flying caribou.
#1044
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality. 
Furthermore, (IFF) it is only possible to have opinions about "objectively extant real true facts" (THEN) our opinions themselves are proof-positive that morality is an "objectively extant real true fact"

this is sort of an ontological argument for platonic morality.
#1045
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF we agree that no objective morality exists
Do we agree that no subjective morality exists?
#1046
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
express opinions about santa claus
Like what?
Topic's author
#1047
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Do we agree that no subjective morality exists?

Opinions about morality exist and human systems of accountability including personal systems of self accountability exist. Human behavior exists and most humans, with a few outliers that are to young too old too sick or too mentally unbalanced do care for and about other humans. 

I don't care what you call it and I'm not arguing for more. 

Forget about subjective morality for a moment and focus on the concepts instead.

I can say I call that subjective morality and you can say that those don't count as morality at all but the basic concepts remain unchanged regardless of what we call them. 

Its odd. I have given you specific and precise definitions and your objection is to the wording I would use to refer to it. In contrast you have given several terms and no adequate definition of them so my objection is that you are not being clear what you mean regardless of your wording. 

For the sake of getting on with it (so long as you do not try to change my basic argument about human behavior or put words in my mouth sure nothing you would define as subjective morality exists and nothing you would define as objective morality exists FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION. 

So since you are the one who is hung up on the whys and wherefores I'll put it to you.

In light if the fact that neither subjective nor objective morality exists why do you care about anything and how without any objective or subjective morality do you justify caring about anything?
#1048
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
IF we agree that no objective morality exists
Do we agree that no subjective morality exists?
"objective morality" is NOT demonstrable (there is no "universal holy code of conduct").

"subjective morality" is simply a description of the absence of a demonstrable "universal holy code of conduct".

"subjective morality" is NOT a claim.

"subjective morality" is simply a description.
#1049
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
express opinions about santa claus
Like what?
Like anything.

Like simply having this conversation.

Like saying, "I think santa claus is a fun story to tell kids because it helps you figure out if they've developed critical thinking skills or not".
#1050
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
IF we disagree about the existence of objective morality (say you think it does exist and I say it doesn't) AND IF we both have (differing) opinions (which we have expressed during the conversation) THEN without a way to determine or demonstrate any objective moral standard we cannot say with any degree of certainty that opinions are contingent upon objective morality. 
Furthermore, (IFF) it is only possible to have opinions about "objectively extant real true facts" (THEN) our opinions themselves are proof-positive that morality is an "objectively extant real true fact"

this is sort of an ontological argument for platonic morality.
Oh, right, I forgot to mention this exact same type of ontological argument also proves that bigfootlochnessspacealiens are "objectively extant real true fact".