What you have to do is explain what you mean by “Morality is objective”. You tried once but it was a poor attempt. Why don’t you do that? If you don’t know how to do it, perhaps you should ask me.
This is my actual post. Not what you quoted.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 3#p2822313
I’m almost at a “fuck you man” point in our discussion.
Objective morality places truth and falsity of good and bad with a measurement that is true regardless of your opinion on the matter.
I have more than fulfilled that.
I don’t need to ask you. You’re co-opting MY definition to make that argument that doesn’t work.
Then you have the nerve to come here and ask me what it means!
I’ve answered you steadily. You stole my definition, reformulated it, and when I pointed out that if all truth values were false (by definition) (which you allowed for in your formulation), then by its own argument, it’s incorrect.
For some bizarre reason. You couldn’t even Understand something that simple. So then you asked me if I thought you needed to prove a truth value in order for your argument to work, and I said “like I said last time, yes”. And then you fucking come back and say that I didn’t say anything one way or the other.
Are you autistic dude? I take that back. An autistic would understand. I have no fucking clue where you’re coming from.
If you want to enlighten me… do it.
What you said is:
There is no “Yes” here.
When you say something to someone and that someone asks for a clarification that you cannot provide, what’s the right way to respond? Do you think it’s fine to tell them “Fuck you man” and ask them “Are you autistic dude?” Personally, I don’t think so.
Have you considered that I’ve been rather nice to you and that people generally aren’t nice to you?
Did you forget that for most people on this broad you’re no more than a laughing stock?
I’m frustrated that I answered your questions multiple times and you deny I did.
I know that you’ve engaged me. I get that.
That’s no reason for you to repeatedly tell me that I didn’t say what I said.
Let’s go back here:
You posted your formulation that every statement that is sensical has a truth value: thus morality is objective.
I stated in the next post that if all moral statements were false, then, by definition, your argument would be bad. The loophole that disproves your argument.
Of COURSE that implies that you must make a true statement!!!
You don’t have to care about the accuracy of an argument, just the pol. I guess you’re just slumming it with me. For what it’s worth, I’ve thought about this problem nonstop for decades.
I know it backwards and forwards.
The ONLY possible way to ground morality objectively is to use the “do want”, “don’t want” signifier… otherwise known as consent.
Without that, objective morality is impossible.
RULE"Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate."
I do not understand what this is intended to convey
-
Morality is subjective, relative and historically and culturally contingent. If it were not so morality would never have changed. But since morality is an ever changing set of debates, you are simply, palpably and evidently wrong. Morality is about a set of rules agreed upon by a communitiy. Name one that is objectively true.
-
I agree. But the only way morality could be objective would be if it were specifically designed by one being. So you have shot yourself in the foot there
-
We do not live forever, unless you think that time begins and ends with your own life. My parents are definitely dead. So I beg to differ.
-
I love sex, sometimes if can be good sometimes bad. It’s just part of life.
-
Poor you. Did your wife get fed up with your rantings and take you for every cent??
-
What do you really expect?
The problem is that your answers aren’t satisfying. In other words, I am not saying you did not attempt to answer my questions (you obviously did) but that you did not answer them in a satisfying way. And note that, since it is me who’s asking questions, and not you, it is me who gets to decide whether or not your answers are satisfying. Yours is merely to either provide satisfying questions or to simply not answer them (because you don’t have time right now, have other priorities, etc.) That’s all.
I only said that there is no “Yes” in the following post:
Do you disagree with this? Yes or no?
That’s not exactly what I said. It’s a bit oversimplified but I guess we can put it aside for now.
And this is the part that isn’t clear.
You are saying that if all moral statements were false, then, by definition, my argument would be bad.
I have no idea how.
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t care. And I am pretty sure noone else cares.
I don’t think you will convince anyone by declaring how great you are.
(The opposite, in fact.)
I get manic sometimes and say I’m awesome to overcompensate.
When I stated that I’ve worked this problem for decades … that’s not greatness, that’s work.
Anyways, you’re trying to place me in some totally bizarre box.
Your box doesn’t matter to the solution.
In order for there to be objective morality, a system requires the signifiers “do want” “don’t want”.
“Don’t want” is the root signifier for an objective morality. (There I said it!!!)
Everyone’s “don’t want” is different, but none of those beings wants a don’t want. Another way to say this is that nobody wants their consent violated. (There, I proved it!!!)
Now, we can from this axiom, begin a calculus of morality, that can be studied objectively.
Why do I need to say “yes” or say “thus morality is objective” in some mechanical bizarre way.
My argument is plain to see.
You have to do it if you want to be understood (specifically, by me, but also, by other people.)
Do you want to be understood?
Says who? Says Ecmandu?
Who are you writing for? Yourself or other people? What do other people think? You know what I think.
I’m merely asking you to clarify. Is that “Placing you in a bizarre box” to you?
Again, this is largely incomprehensible.
Ok…
Let me try to use an five part equality here:
1.) “don’t want” = “consent violation” = “bad” = “wrong” = “incorrect”
2.) “do want” = “consent” = “good” = “right” = “correct”
All I have to do is prove one to imply all the others, and I have to do it universally, otherwise it’s not objective.
Which one did I pick? Consent violation. Doesn’t matter what your opinion is, all life systems can have their consent violated, even all hypothetical ones.
That’s universally objective BAD!! That’s objective morality from an axiomatic root. In all living systems this will always emerge and it will always be universal - regardless of your opinion!!
You have to do it for “morality” not just one example.
Axiomatic does not hold, since it is self referencing.
eg Straight lines equally apart are parallel. Parallel lines are equally distant. Does not say much except to define.
If you define all good actions as good moral actions and all bad actions as bad moral actions you still have all your work to do.
You have to take a moral rules and for that to be objective it would have to be true without exception or codisil.
So here’s the deal sculptor …
Not even the most insane person in all of existence wants what they don’t want.
Sure people may want to seem tough, or they are ignorant about the magnitude of what can really be done to them.
I explained this earlier in this discussion many times…
Magnus cherry picks by the way which is why I was getting riled up.
What I explained earlier is
A.) nobody want their consent violated
B.) every being in existence in some way shape or form is having their consent violated
Which leads us to C
C.) the goal of existence is to allow people to have all that they want forever at nobodies expense
D.) since we’re not there yet, the highest current morality is harm reduction; people concentrate better when they’re not being continuously cut again on a raw wound. We need all the people we can get to solve this problem once and for all, and we need them in tip-top shape mentally
I agree with (A). I also agree it’s true by definition. To say that person A violated person B’s consent simply means that person A did something that person B does not approve of i.e. something that person B does not want to happen. From this we can conclude that no person wants their consent violated.
I also agree with (B).
However, I don’t see how (C) follows.
I agree that the goal of every human being is to have all that they want. That’s true by definition and it does not have to be (and it cannot be) derived from (A) and (B).
But what about the part that says “at nobody’s expense”. How did you conclude that from (A) and (B)? I don’t think you can.
(D) argues that no person can attain their highest goal without making sure that they violate other people’s consent to the extent that it is necessary – no more and no less. This too is true by definition.
It seems that the conclusion of your argument is that “Every person should violate other people’s consent only to the extent that it is necessary to do so – no more and no less than that.”
Basically…
C.) is the derived ideal. The only thing left when you cross off consent violation is getting everything you want at the expense of nobody. That’s how it follows.
If you completely cross consent violation off, that’s all that’s left.
Part D is about what we do in the absence of that ideal (which is our current scenario)
Your (A) merely states “Nobody wants their consent to be violated”. That statement does not imply “Nobody wants other people’s consent to be violated”. And your (B) merely states that every being in existence is having their consent violated, so it’s not implying it either.
I stated this before…
If you keep traumatizing someone, they can’t work on the problem of eradicating consent violation (they’ll just be in flight or fight land the whole time) - and we need as many people working this problem as possible to help solve it as soon as possible.
I also gave the exception: if you are sent to prison for raping someone, that will violate the rapists consent (duh), but the exception is to always speak out against abuse and do something about abuse.
You did. But it’s not stated in (A) and (B), and so, it stands that (C) does not follow from the two.
Have you considered splitting (C) into two different premises? For example:
C1) The highest goal of every human being is to have all they want to have in life.
C2) In order for a human being to attain their highest goal, they must violate consent no more and no less than is necessary to do so.
Both of these are independent from (A) and (B) in the sense that they are not derived from them. I would say that (C1) is unnecessary, so you can probably get rid of it. I would also add that (A) and (B) are unnecessary as well. So that leaves us only with (C2). We can then couple that statement with another one to derive a universal moral statement. Here’s an example:
-
In order for a human being to attain their highest goal, they must violate consent no more and no less than is necessary to do so.
-
A human being should always choose to do that which brings him closer to attaining his highest goal.
-
Therefore, every human being should violate consent no more and no less than is necessary to do so.
This looks like what you’re trying to do.
C2 needs a proof.
It needs the trauma proof I gave. People continuously traumatized cannot work to solve C1.
C2 is true by definition. The trauma proof you speak of is unnecessary.
C2 as an example is unfounded assertion.
C1 is true.
C2 takes a leap from C1 (about other people) and grounds it in nothing.
(C2) is true by definition and it’s unrelated to (C1).
It merely states that in order to attain your highest goal, the amount of consent you have to violate must be equal to the amount of consent violation that constitutes the path that leads to the attainment of your highest goal. That amount may be zero or it may be quite a lot. It may be punishment for people who violate consent or merely a means for you to fulfill your desires.
I think the problem with (C2) is that it does not represent exactly what you tried to say. What you tried to say is that in order to attain your highest goal, you must make sure that noone violates anyone else’s consent. That is not true by definition and it needs something like your “trauma proof” to prove it to be true. Albeit, I am pretty sure that most people won’t be convinced by your proof (you need more than that.)