I explained how the statement
“Nobody wants their consent violated” in ought terms…
I said that we can conclude that since everyone in some way shape or form is having their consent violated, then, the imperative is to violate as little consent as possible (harm reduction) until we solve that problem once and for all.
From here we can develop a moral calculus.
We already do this to some extent.
My intent is not private language.
You explained how the statement “Nobody wants their consent violated” in ought terms?
What does that even mean? (:
It’s not an ought statement. It cannot be. And by extension, it’s not a moral belief. “People ought to violate as little consent as possible” on the other hand is an ought statement – and it is a moral one.
How does that prove that morality is objective? You are merely concluding that “We should violate as little consent as possible”. Unlike that other statement of yours, this one is most definitely a moral belief. But did you prove that its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks? That was your task.
So… as I stated in my opening post.
You are insane if you want your consent violated.
Nobody is that insane! Nobody.
People like to violate consent, but! nobody wants theirs violated. I used the example of hell to illustrate this.
From this we can agree that there is an imperative in our current consent violating cosmos.
Additionally … I would add that the more hell you create for someone creates conditions that make it less likely to solve this problem.
Thus, by moral imperative, if you want this problem solved for you, stop traumatizing the fuck out of people so that they can actually, collectively, have enough cognitive space to work on solving this problem. Being in fight or flight 24/7 is not conducive to having the cognitive space the work this problem.
Note that I agree with you when you say that “Nobody wants their consent violated”. I believe many other people do as well (e.g. Observer.) Also note that I already said this few posts ago. So there is no reason for you to prove this claim to me, nor is there any reason for you to insist that it is true over and over again as if I’m disputing it.
What’s obvious to me is that your argument consists of a premise that is “Nobody wants their consent violated” and a conclusion that is “People ought to violate as little consent as possible”. That’s obvious to me. What’s not obvious to me is the connection between the two i.e. the mechanism by which you derived the second claim from the first.
It is extremely important that the connection between the premises and the conclusion in an argument is obvious. Otherwise, you don’t have much of an argument. At best, you have a hint. But this is a debate and hints have no place within a debate.
Moreover! – and this seems to be far more important – you set out to prove that “Morality is objective” not that “People ought to violate as little consent as possible”. So either you did not prove what you set out to prove or you (once again) failed to make the connection between your premises (“People ought to violate as little consent as possible”) and your conclusion (“Morality is objective”) clear.
So Magnus,
Where I make the link is that constant trauma and fight or flight cannot allow the focus to solve the problem all of us share - ending consent violation for all of us.
It’s irrational to directly violate consent because you lose one more person to help solve the problem.
And we need everyone we can get.
How does that prove that morality is objective?
Because we all have a baseline regardless of your opinion of the matter.
The baseline is a purpose statement.
We need to eradicate consent violation while fulfilling all our desires forever as the prize, as the goal.
It’s true by definition.
That is not just a truth, it is an imperative.
No matter what permutation of being arises, this will always be true for all possible beings.
Thus, objective.
You have to present an argument that concludes that for every moral statement (S) its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks its truth value is.
I don’t see you doing that.
Instead, I see you arguing that some particular moral statement (“People ought to violate as little consent as possible”) is true and asserting that it is true independently from what anyone thinks. The former seems unnecessary and the latter is not an argument but an assertion.
Jesus Ecman it’s hardly been twenty four hours and you’re already getting schooled.
My advice is to change the subject, or make up some kind of emergency or something that you have to attend to, making you unable to post for a while. Let about a week pass and everybody will forget about this debate completely.
knuckle bump
I already told you why. You ignored it.
The purpose of life is for all of us to get all our desires met forever at nobodies expense.
The more often we agitate people, or the more people we agitate, the harder it is to focus on the goal. People constantly being poked over and over again don’t solve problems very well.
Nice try Prom.
Perhaps you did but I didn’t see it; or more likely, I did see it but I didn’t realize it’s a proper argument. Feel free to link to it.
Yeah, that’s what I thought you’re trying to say in the first half of this post. I don’t agree with it but I don’t think I should push it because it seems its truth value is irrelevant to the point you’re supposed to make.
That’s merely an argument in favor of the claim that we shouldn’t agitate people (because it distracts everyone from reaching their highest goal.)
If that’s the conclusion of your argument – and it seems that it is – then you didn’t prove what you set out to prove. The conclusion of your argument should be “Morality is objective”. And “We shouldn’t agitate people” does not have the same meaning as “Morality is objective”, so you can’t just say “Well, that’s the same statement worded differently”. You have to conclude with “Morality is objective” and the connection must be obvious.
That we should try as little as possible to agitate people so that we have more people solving the big problem is objective.
The objective argument is that
1.) nobody wants their consent violated.
2.) were all having our consent violated, which means existence as a whole is immoral
3.) when you violate consent, people are incapable of working this problem
4.) the more people you have working on this problem, the more likely you are to succeed.
5.) this creates a moral imperative - violate as little consent as possible to solve this problem
Yes, that’s what you think. And that’s something you already said. But did you present an argument in favor it?
“Objective argument” is a strange term but I guess what you really mean is “An argument in favor of the idea that morality is objective”.
I take it that statements (1), (2), (3) and (4) are your premises and statement (5) is your conclusion. If that’s the case, note how statement (5) is not “Morality is objective” but something else? In other words, this is NOT an argument in favor of the claim you were supposed to prove.
Magnus…
It’s all definitional.
Nobody wants their consent violated is definitional to ‘consent violation’ - the only bad that exists.
Thus - the process that eliminates it is moral by definition as well.
Since we don’t have a perfect definitially moral system yet, morality is categorized as the best actions to take to solve it.
That may involve killing innocent civilians or sending people to prison.
I’m not trying to be a monster here. I’m arguing that monsters are so myopic that they impede the task of solving the big problem by traumatizing people in perpetuity. We need everyone at their best to solve this problem.
Definitional or not, the conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective”. If it is not then your argument is not an argument in favor of the idea that morality is objective.
I defined objectivity as:
It true regardless of your opinion.
I define objective morality as:
It’s right or wrong regardless of your opinion
So…
You have a system that violates consent forever (insanity) or you work to solve it.
It’s very simple what right and wrong is here.
The conclusion of your argument is “this creates a moral imperative - violate as little consent as possible to solve this problem”. That’s NOT the same statement as “Morality is objective”.
The moral axiom is the only way to arrive at the moral imperative.
It’s self evident that consent violation is not what any being wants.
It’s definitional in fact. Can’t be disputed.
So then it’s a matter of what facilitates this process.
That’s the moral imperative.
The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective”.
“Thus - the process that eliminates it is moral by definition as well.”
A world in which there is absolutely no consent violation in any form and at any degree is inconceivable… or would have to be so fundamentally different at every level - physically, chemically, biologically, ecologically - that any subject in that world would be unidentifiably alien and we wouldn’t be talking about us anymore. They’d be like plant beings or something with no nervous system.
That being the case, this:
“morality is categorized as the best actions to take to solve it.”
Is misleading, because since the world you’re talking about is impossible, there is no problem to solve, and therefore no solution. You can’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
What u can do tho is minimize the grand premise to include only smaller, metaphysically free problems, practical ethical and economic problems. There’s a shitload of consent violation going on in those fields, and solutions to those problems won’t include hyperdimensional mirrors and traversing galaxies in spirit form to save species from the hells of the eighth, seventeenth, and twenty-ninth lenzorefian axes.
Now if u truly aren’t crazy and know we know you know we know you’re full of bologna, what I just explained will make sense. But if you really are out to lunch, none of this will register and I therefore retract this post.