Morality Is Objective

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective”.

Yeah. And I defined objective as it being true no matter what your OPINION is!!!

Look at my last post.

There are no opinions there, just facts of existence.

A.) nobody wants their consent violated

B.) everyone is having their consent violated

C.) trauma (consent violation) impedes solving any problem

D.) we need to violate as little consent as possible to create an always better space to solve this problem

My argument is not complicated or false

[Ecmandu]

@promethean75

“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.

That’s not true. I’m working non zero sum hyper-dimensional mirror realities attached to our individual desire manifestation structures.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

D.) we need to violate as little consent as possible to create an always better space to solve this problem

That’s not “Morality is objective”.

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ecmandu

D.) we need to violate as little consent as possible to create an always better space to solve this problem

That’s not “Morality is objective”.

Everything I told you is true regardless of your what your opinion is.

And it’s morally imperative.

You’re on the defensive side now, not me.

[Magnus_Anderson]

The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective” (:

[WendyDarling]

@Magnus Anderson

The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective” (:

If you started a “how to debate” thread, it might be beneficial for most on ILP. I’d love to learn more about it, especially about presenting the argument aspect. I definitely don’t understand that.

[Ecmandu]

@WendyDarling

@Magnus Anderson

The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective” (:

If you started a “how to debate” thread, it might be beneficial for most on ILP. I’d love to learn more about it, especially about presenting the argument aspect. I definitely don’t understand that.

He’s only so confident because he believes by rote memory that you can’t derive an ought from an is; which is what I’m doing here.

I’m stating the IS.

• Nobody wants their consent violated

• everyone is having their consent violated

Then I’m stating the OUGHT.

• Everyone needs to solve this problem.

• anything that impedes this is bad/wrong anything that helps solve this is good / correct

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Wendy Darling

If you started a “how to debate” thread, it might be beneficial for most on ILP. I’d love to learn more about it, especially about presenting the argument aspect. I definitely don’t understand that.

I don’t want to be seen as a “debate expert” because I don’t think I am one. The reason I don’t think I am one is quite simply because I don’t have enough debates behind me (e.g. hundreds and hundreds of debates on various subjects with various people.) Instead, I see myself more as a guy with an idea on how to come up with better rules for debates and a desire to work on testing and improving that idea. In this particular thread, however, I am more of a reviewer, if you know what I mean. I am reviewing Ecmandu’s opening post in that debate thread and I’m doing so from my point of view (the same exact way people do it when they review movies, books, music, etc.) He has a product (a belief) and I am a potential purchaser (someone who may adopt his belief.) Of course, I already agree with him that morality is objective, so that’s not exactly true, but I can pretend that I don’t and evaluate how good of a salesman he is from that vantage point. And my verdict is that he’s not a good one.

@Ecmandu

He’s only so confident because he believes by rote memory that you can’t derive an ought from an is; which is what I’m doing here.

I don’t think that. I don’t think that you cannot derive an ought from an is.

What I believe is that:

1. The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective” (because that’s what you set out to prove)

2. The conclusion of your argument is NOT a belief that can be expressed as “Morality is objective”

Do you agree with (1)?

Do you agree with (2)?

That’s what I want to hear from you (and what I’ve been waiting to hear from you).

[Magnus_Anderson]

Here’s my own argument in favor of the idea that morality is objective:

[tab]Let “statement of fact” denote any statement that says that some aspect of the world is such and such.

I interpret “Morality is objective” to mean “For every moral statement (S), its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks its truth value is”.

Argument:

1. Every statement of fact is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.

2. Every moral statement is a statement of fact.

3. Therefore, any given moral statement is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.[/tab]

It has several benefits over Ecmandu’s argument:

1. It actually concludes that “Morality is objective” (the conclusion does not use these words but that’s what it means)

2. It is significantly simpler

3. It is significantly easier to understand

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

Here’s my own argument in favor of the idea that morality is objective:

[tab]Let “statement of fact” denote any statement that says that some aspect of the world is such and such.

I interpret “Morality is objective” to mean “For every moral statement (S), its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks its truth value is”.

Argument:

1. Every statement of fact is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.

2. Every moral statement is a statement of fact.

3. Therefore, any given moral statement is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.[/tab]

It has several benefits over Ecmandu’s argument:

1. It actually concludes that “Morality is objective” (the conclusion does not use these words but that’s what it means)

2. It is significantly simpler

3. It is significantly easier to understand

There’s a massive loophole there. If all moral statements are false, then that’s a BAD argument!!

[Ecmandu]

@Ecmandu

@Magnus Anderson

The conclusion of your argument must be “Morality is objective”.

Yeah. And I defined objective as it being true no matter what your OPINION is!!!

Look at my last post.

There are no opinions there, just facts of existence.

A.) nobody wants their consent violated

B.) everyone is having their consent violated

C.) trauma (consent violation) impedes solving any problem

D.) we need to violate as little consent as possible to create an always better space to solve this problem

My argument is not complicated or false

I had to set up an architecture to show that there’s something of VALUE. You’re missing many steps here magnus …

Without something of universal value … that’s objective, you can’t argue that morality is objective

The conclusion rests in the universal value of eradicating consent violation - once the value is established, it follows that morality is objective.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

There’s a massive loophole there. If all moral statements are false, then that’s a BAD argument!!

Are you trying to say that my argument is supposed to prove that there are true moral statements?

[Magnus_Anderson]

(Double posted for no reason and then deleted it because double posts are unwelcome on this board and elsewhere.)

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

Without something of universal value … that’s objective, you can’t argue that morality is objective

That’s why you had to put a lot more effort in explaining what you mean by “Morality is objective”.

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ecmandu

There’s a massive loophole there. If all moral statements are false, then that’s a BAD argument!!

Are you trying to say that my argument is supposed to prove that there are true moral statements?

Like I just pointed out … it’s required in order for the argument to work.

The argument is either good or bad and you are either good or bad for presenting it (morality).

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ecmandu

Without something of universal value … that’s objective, you can’t argue that morality is objective

That’s why you had to put a lot more effort in explaining what you mean by “Morality is objective”.

Yeah, a lot more effort than you.

First I had to prove choice (compatabilism)

Then I had to prove universal value (for all possible beings)

In order to prove that morality is meaningful (choice) and then that it’s objective (universal value for all possible beings)

I succeeded at both.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

There’s a massive loophole there. If all moral statements are false, then that’s a BAD argument!!

@Magnus Anderson

Are you trying to say that my argument is supposed to prove that there are true moral statements?

This is a yes or no question. Yet, you answered with:

@Ecmandu

Like I just pointed out … it’s required in order for the argument to work.

Is that a “Yes” or is it a “No”?

You have a habit of not answering questions directly.

@Ecmandu

The argument is either good or bad and you are either good or bad for presenting it (morality).

And what exactly is bad about my argument?

@Magnus Anderson

Without something of universal value … that’s objective, you can’t argue that morality is objective

@Ecmandu

That’s why you had to put a lot more effort in explaining what you mean by “Morality is objective”.

@Magnus Anderson

Yeah, a lot more effort than you.

What I meant is that you didn’t put enough effort in explaining what you mean by “Morality is objective”. All you did is say that “Objective morality” means “It’s true regardless of what anyone’s opinion is”. That’s a pretty bad exaplanation.

The thing is that I came to the conclusion that what you mean by “Morality is objective” is something other than what I thought you mean. Specifically, I came to conclusion that you mean “There are moral statements that are true regardless of what anyone thinks”.

@Ecmandu

First I had to prove choice (compatabilism)

I am pretty sure that’s unnecessary (it merely makes your argument unnecessarily complicated.)

I succeeded at both.

I don’t think so.

[Ecmandu]

Magnus, I already said yes to it. I reiterated that yes.

You need to prove something is true to make a moral argument.

Not only true, but true for all possible beings.

Thus: nobody wants their consent violated

It’s like you don’t even respond to me what I write while declaring I’m not responding to you.

My words are right there to read.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

Magnus, I already said yes to it. I reiterated that yes.

Where exactly is that “Yes”?

You said:

@Ecmandu

Like I just pointed out … it’s required in order for the argument to work.

There is not a single instance of the word “Yes” in this sentence.

You need to prove something is true to make a moral argument.

I have no idea what this means.

I think the issue is merely the fact that it’s difficult to tell what you’re trying to prove. It is obvious that you’re trying to prove that morality is objective but it’s not clear what exactly you mean by that.

It’s like you don’t even respond to me what I write while declaring I’m not responding to you.

I often ask questions that you do not bother to answer.

I posted this early in this thread. You never responded to it in a satisfying way.

You also didn’t provide a satisfying to the second part of this post.

My words are right there to read.

I read all of your words, so that’s not the problem. The problem is that you do not give direct answers and that you’re generally difficult to understand.

There is thus no need for you to repeat yourself. No need for “I already said that”. You won’t achieve anything other than frustrate yourself. You have to explain, clarify, etc.

[Ecmandu]

Magnus,

I’ll tell you exactly what I mean by it.

There are two things that need to be solved in order to argue for objective morality.

1.) that we have choices. If everything is completely determined, you can’t judge anyone (by definition), there is no such thing as bad no matter what you do.

2.) there needs to be a value of good/bad that is always true for all possible beings forever under any and every context.

That value just happens to be: “nobody wants their consent violated.” If your opinion is that this is false, you are as morally objectively incorrect as a person is physically objectively incorrect that they’ll fly if they jump off a cliff.

Consent violation for self = bad

True by definition for all possible beings.

I have no idea why this is so confusing to you.

You need a universal value system that’s true by definition for all possible beings to ground objective morality. I did that. You’re the one not making sense, not me.