Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#1051
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
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".
Indeed it does. 
#1052
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Forget about subjective morality for a moment and focus on the concepts instead.
Your request makes no sense, if your arguing that subjective morality is solely a concept then it means nothing in terms of progressing this discussion, so if this thing (whatever it is) exists in your mind and your mind alone then it needs to stay there but once you make the decision to make it an argument in this very much concrete discussion you’re also making the decision that it’s more than just your personally derived concept regardless of how hard your fighting against that.
#1053
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If your likening subjective morality to Santa Claus then I don’t see why you believe in the former and not the latter.
Topic's author
#1054
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
And you have missed the point again. 
Topic's author
#1055
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
He is actually likening santa claus to objective morality. 
#1056
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
And you have missed the point again. 
You clearly don’t have one.
Topic's author
#1057
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Let's say there isno subjective morality and no objective morality. Then what? What practical advice would you then like to offer?
#1058
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
How many times you have to ask me that? I told you already that under nihilism I have no advice.
#1059
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Objective Morality is a real true fact.

How does this Objective Morality help me determine what I should be doing today?
Topic's author
#1060
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
And you have missed the point again. 
You clearly don’t have one.
This was is and remains my point.

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. 



#1061
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Your questioning is circular being an objectively moral person is what you should be doing, and don’t ask me how you do that because that was never my argument in this discussion.
Topic's author
#1062
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Your questioning is circular being an objectively moral person is what you should be doing, and don’t ask me how you do that because that was never my argument in this discussion.
Actually your answer is circular and that is a much bigger problem if you care about the logical validity of your statement. In any case it is unhelpful to prescribe being objectively moral without a definition of what you mean in this context. 
#1063
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.
But under nihilism you shouldn’t care, that’s my point.
Topic's author
#1064
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
My syllogism is unaffected by nihilism. It is equally true whether morality actually exists or only survival of the fittest.

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.


#1065
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Your questioning is circular being an objectively moral person is what you should be doing, and don’t ask me how you do that because that was never my argument in this discussion.
Ok.

Be objectively moral.

I am already and have always been objectively moral.
#1066
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL

Yes, objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective morality to be had. Religious people will define objective morality according to the commandments of their god(s). Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder, as inherently bad.
Objective morality says that morality exists in nature—it's how we were programmed.
#1067
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
This is my table. It has eight legs. Let me know if you see any problems. 
No I don’t see any problems with what if propositions because there limitless in making anything a possibility (in this case your limit is eight) even fallacies.
#1068
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Great well in that case I guess I can return the question you’ve been asking me back to you, how do I become objectively moral?
Topic's author
#1069
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No I don’t see any problems with what if propositions because there limitless in making anything a possibility even fallacies.
This is self contradictory. Logical fallacies and only fallacies are structural weaknesses in syllogisms. If it contains some logical fallacy then it is flawed. If you cannot point out any flaws we must consider it a valid logical syllogism. IF you are alive and IF you wish to continue doing so. Only you can say if you care to continue to be alive. The reason you wish to continue living is immaterial. 
#1070
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you care
And what IF you don’t, then what?
Topic's author
#1071
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Even if you put the word IF in front? Because what IF I stated my syllogism with IF fallacies are logical then? It makes fallacies as logical a possibility.
That gives the implied reverse syllogism. 

An "IF fallacies are logical" begs a "IF fallacies are not logical". In any case logical fallacies are definitionally illogical. It is literally a flaw in ones logic.

So

OF fallacies are logical (to you) THEN you do not understand what makes something a fallacy.

#1072
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Objective morality says that morality exists in nature—it's how we were programmed.
I agree.
#1073
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Great well in that case I guess I can return the question you’ve been asking me back to you, how do I become objectively moral?
You are also objectively moral.
Topic's author
#1074
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
IF you care
And what IF you don’t, then what?
IF you are not alive THEN you would appear to be incapable of wanting or caring about anything and so this syllogism does not apply to you whether or not there is any objective morality. 

And

IF you are alive BUT you do not care about continuing to live or have the active goal of ending your life then barring some outside interference then you will probably not be alive much longer and so this syllogism does not apply to you whether or not objective morality exists. 

However 

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 equally true whether or not any objective morality exists. So how about it. Are you alive? Do you care to continue being alive? Well then whether or not objective morality exists may I recommend caring about others as part of the necessary self care needed to stay alive.

#1075
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to nihilism?
Topic's author
#1076
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to what I’m arguing, which is under nihilism you shouldn’t care.
Since we defacto agree that there is no objective meaning or morality and I don't really have any problems with observing my syllogism based on nothing more than my desire to stay alive this is more your problem than mine. Why do you care in the context of at minimum soft nihilism and the admission that we cannot demonstrate any intrinsic meaning? 

IF we shouldn't care about anything UNLESS you can demonstrate some objective meaning AND IF you cannot demonstrate any objective meaning THEN you should not care about anything. 

Do you care about anything? 

You can post whatever you want but you can't lie to yourself.

IF you are alive AND IF you care to continue doing so THEN my syllogism applies even "under nihilism". 

So the question is simply this.

ARE you alive and DO you wish to continue doing so?

If the answer inside you is yes and there is no intrinsic meaning then there is nothing to stop you from observing my syllogism just for the hell of it because life seems preferable to death. 

IF there is no available explanation for why any given organisms find life preferable to death BUT they observably struggle to remain alive THEN my syllogism still applies. 
#1077
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't really have any problems with observing my syllogism based on nothing more than my desire to stay alive
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.
Topic's author
#1078
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Then why should I even pay attention to this syllogism if it’s not applicable to nihilism?
Why shouldn't you? You don't need a larger justification in order to struggle to stay alive. ALL organisms struggle to stay alive or do not pass on their genes as effectively (or at all) and those organisms WILL disappear leaving behind only organisms that DO struggle to stay alive. A preference for life is very nearly necessitated by being alive.

Do you see the difference between saying "people should/shouldn't care about staying alive" and "(many) people do care about staying alive"?

Should/shouldn't doesn't enter into it. Only does/doesn't.

IF you does want to keep living THEN you does. This is an inescapable tautology. I'm not even making any real observations here.

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/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 equally true whether or not any objective morality exists.

Anyway IF there is no reason to care THEN there is also no reason not to. 
Topic's author
#1079
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
The problem is if you can’t objectively prove your life is meaningful then it makes no sense to have that desire.
IF objective meaning does exist and IF you cannot demonstrate it THEN you still cannot objectively prove your life is meaningful. 

IF being unable to prove objectively that your life has meaning makes having any given desire make no sense THEN having that desire makes no sense WHETHER OR NOT objective meaning exists.
#1080
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't need a larger justification in order to struggle to stay alive.
When did I ever argue against that? If that’s your only argument going forward than all I can say to that is duh.