back to the beginning: morality

Okay, the godawful objectivist Kid it is then. :laughing:

You’re a scared little kid, who’s too afraid to admit that reality is currently, objectively, by definition, evil.

Let’s take this to Rant, okay? You start the thread. :wink:

It scares you to have it objectively solved …

Yet you call me the kid. The rant part was started by you, again a manifestation of your fear.

We’re done here. You know, this being the philosophy board. I’m more partial myself to dealing with retorts of this sort in rant. There it just makes more sense not to take them seriously. :wink:

“You’re a scared little kid”

Don’t you dare talk to biggy like that. Private Biggs was packing it on the mekong delta knee deep in the shit before you were even born, sonny.

Yeah… well he’s taken to trolling his own thread so that he can’t be disproven in a public forum on ILP

private biggs doesn’t ‘troll’… he ‘patrols’.

I submitted proof through contradiction by self evident definition.

Iambiguous is trolling. He’s also scared.

You did not. You failed to establish your quantifier transformation which resulted in biconditional disjunction and irreflexivity. Therefore there was no proof of the sequent.

I told you about this, man, and you’re still doing it.

Is that what someone should say to you when they hit your foot with a hammer??

Read the post above as well…

Iambiguous could have been polite enough to post this, wow, he really is scared:

viewtopic.php?f=6&p=2735447#p2735447

Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine
Graham Dunstan Martin

Ever and always the ambiguity embedded in the part where the subjective “I” ends and the objective world begins. Sometimes the arguments are wholly technical, making little or no contact with the world of actual human interactions. Other times the arguments are wholly existential, making little or no contact with the tools of philosophy.

What I figure is that in regard to actual conflicting goods there has yet to be an argument made that seamlessly combines both approaches such that one or another deontological assessment allows us, both technically and for all practical purposes, to know how all rational men and women are obligated to behave.

But, further, only in bringing both approaches down to earth and examining human behaviors revolving around a specific context reflecting value judgments at odds, will the arguments become more comprehensive, more substantial.

But: How on earth is this to be understood more comprehensively, more substantially? “In principle”, sure, lots and lots of things can be agreed upon. But what particular inquiry and agreement are we talking about?

“In principle” any actual community can agree that abortion is murder or that immigration must be stopped or that government ought not to regulate gun ownership.

And if those in power in that community can sustain what is agreed upon “in principle”, sure, call that objective morality.

But what if conditions and events change calling into question this principle? What if folks from other communities that champion conflicting principles make contact?

What is this if not a classic example of the “general description” that allows for the existence of objective morality “in principle”?

Bring these 5 points down to earth and explore them in regard to an actual context in the modern world, and see how long this “general description” of morality “in principle” can be sustained.

Objective facts do not demonstrate objective morality because this is a non sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy
Facts are not necessarily objectively true but only taken to be true at the time in the absence of any contradiction
Also facts are empirical whereas morality is abstract so any comparison is a false equivalence and therefore invalid

I can only react to this by pointing out the obvious: it does not reference any particular facts relating to any particular context in which a discussion of morality might be expected.

There are objective facts that rational people can find agreement regarding with respect to gun ownership in America.

Now, given the facts that are able to be accumulated, what can in fact be concluded in turn regarding the moral obligation of the American government [federal state local] insofar as regulating gun ownership amongst its citizens?

How is your assessment above applicable here?

Or to a context of your own choosing.

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe, I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent. I am also not using English incorrectly to state that the stubbing my toe is evil, I can call mere objects evil without even anthropomorphising.

I gave you a context iambiguous, a very down to earth one in fact:

Existence is the context.

Consent is the self evident checking in.

The context of existence is violating (in one way or another) every beings consent.

Thus, given that very real world, down to earth analysis, we can objectively say that existence is some pretty evil shit. All of us know that nobodies toe ever had to be stubbed in existence, yet millions are. Existence violates consent.

what a curious use of language. is it even possible to give one’s consent to a concrete sidewalk? would it be okay for the sidewalk to stub your toe only after you’ve given it permission? it makes no sense to speak of ‘against consent’ unless we can also speak of ‘with consent’, but to give consent requires that the thing being given the consent can understand the permission it has been granted, and act accordingly. but alas, the sidewalk can know nothing of your desire to avoid stubbing your toe against it, and cannot therefore be accountable for violating your consent.

now if you’d rather generalize your statement to mean ‘life sucks because there is pain’, that would be more acceptable… or at least more sensible.

No! It’s YOUR consent, not the sidewalks consent.

again: how could you give consent to a sidewalk?

analogously, if i do not indicate that a piece of property is mine, and someone takes it, has that person stolen it? they’ve taken it, but have they ‘stolen’ it? to consciously perform an act of theft, one must know the property belongs to someone.

to consciously perform an act of consent violation, the sidewalk needs to know in advance that you don’t want to stub your toe. did you tell him before you started walking on him?

and btw, i’m pretty sure he didn’t appreciate you walking all over him like that.

Bad straw man … some straw mans are good.

You either agree or disagree with what’s happening to you, irrespective of the sentience or lack thereof, of what’s causing or not causing grief.

You keep trying to assign agency to the external, when consent is only judged internally.

So, you know the whole “define your terms and I’ll debate with you?”

I’m not using consent in a peculiar way when I state that the consent violator need not be sentient, however, you accused me of that, and it’s a bad straw man.