Let’s say killing is always bad
Thus: I should kill Ecmandu and I should not kill Ecmandu to prove my point. This is impossible.
It’s word salad Magnus.
Morality requires that you do or don’t do something. It’s binary (at least to the best of our current ability).
It’s not so much a logical contradiction in meta logic.
“All moral systems are false”
Well… “this is moral” … ok, that’s false
Well… “this is immoral”. … ok, that’s true.
I’ve already anticipated the paradox.
Do you agree that both “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” and “I should not present my argument to Ecmandu” are moral statements?
If so, do you agree that if “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” is false that it follows that “I should not present my argument to Ecmandu” is true?
If so, do you agree that if all moral statements are false, that it follows that both “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” and “I should not present my argument to Ecmandu” are false?
If so, it follows that “I should not present my argument to Ecmandu” is both true and false. That’s P and Not-P. In other words, a logical contradiction. Can you see that?
“All moral statements are false” is an oxymoron. The only hope that you have at this point is that that statement is not necessary in order to make your point. You might be able – and I am sure you can – choose a different one – a less universal one.
Either way, this bit remains unresolved:
This has become mildly amusing. 
— I should note it in my Joy diary/dairy. 
Alright Magnus,
When it comes to the equalities I mentioned many posts above:
Moral = correct = good = right = true
Immoral = incorrect = bad = wrong = false
You’re only stopping at one stop when you’re doing the p / not p argument. It’s actually an infinite regress argument… it’s false, it’s false that that’s false (true now), it’s false that that’s true now (false again) etc…
Every paradox comes from the false part of the truth table. No exception to this.
Doesn’t / does / doesn’t / does. Etc…
Even the paradoxes of Zeno come from this…
Except they note the part where the string doesn’t terminate… so that you never get there.
To put this in better perspective, we can say that if all moral statements (true or false) are false, that this formulation is undefined. But even this has problems!
Undefined cannot logically be a word representing its own definition.
I try to stay away from this stuff whenever possible.
The way I wave my hands about it is that we have different layers of abstraction where the signifier is not the same as the signified.
We can say things like, “undefined has no definition except to describe that it has no definition other than that”
So with this, we can terminate the regress on moral statements using falsity…
It’s always true that it’s false if it’s false and it’s always false that it’s true if it’s true except this definition itself. This definition is always true as a meta abstraction of the concept attempting to be conveyed.
So you don’t agree that the statement “All moral statements are false” is an oxymoron?
Either way, I think we can safely skip discussing this particular issue and return to this:
No, I think it’s a paradox. Paradoxes can only be terminated by higher orders.
As to the second part:
Yes.
hashtag honesty
2 posts were split to a new topic: Why Does Anything Follow From A Contradiction?
All paradoxes are the product of humans misunderstanding - intentionally or not - the representations they use for the represented.
Morality does not require a god, nor is it manmade.
Morality refers to a set of necessary behaviours that facilitate cooperative survival strategies. They are naturally selected behaviours that man encodes, using language.
These codes of conduct are considered ‘divine’ because they are so essential to the survival of social species. not only humans but ALL social species.
Man, subsequently, takes these codes and amends them. Man intervenes upon what has evolved to facilitate the development of more complex systems - adjusting nature to his needs.
Mosaic Laws are the first encoded amendments to moral behaviours.
God is used as a method of enforcing these amendments on a species that has not been naturally selected to abide by them.
If we call these amendment ethics, to differentiate them from moral behaviours that are naturally selected we can begin to understand where and how morals develop into ethical systems, based on human ideologies.
Ideologies are extensions of genealogies.
Genes to Memes.
For example, the ethical rules concerning adultery are necessary amendments that inhibit human sexual promiscuity and competitiveness, so as to make stable societies possible.
We can say the same for ethical rules prohibiting murder, or in-group violence, or violence in general.
In nature in-group violence is regulated by the dominant male, which has now been abstracted and institutionalized.
The current humanistic ideology, dominating the west, expands the concept of an in-group to include all members of the species.
We see, here, messianism and globalism at work.
So, is morality subjective?
No.
It is necessary.
So, it evolves and becomes ingrained within a species that practices cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Is it universal?
No, since it only applies to life and only life that practices cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Is morality objective?
Yes…since it is independent from all subjective desires and perspectives.
Are ethics, or amendments to these moral rules subjective?
Yes, because they are directed by manmade ideologies, with specific objectives.
Objectives that can be nihilistic, or contrary to survival, as in the case on nihilistic ideologies/dogmas.
How and why can such ideals survive?
Because they are useful for mass control and because the consequences are mitigated and absorbed by the collective - they are collectivized.
But, in time, such nihilistic ideologies do lead to self-annaihilation, if they are ever practiced as they are preached - which they rarely are - see Abrahamism, or Marxism.
Neither can practice its ideals because this would lead to certain death…so they develop excuses and justifications.
raises hand
Satyr: (feeling train of thought is interrupted, yet again, by the same person dominating every discussion) Yes?
Ichthus: So… is the species the in-group…you seem to narrow it? What about symbiosis? Who encodes genes? Nature? So… is nature alive, since it is encoding and selecting stuff that only applies to life?
Symbiosis does not mean there is no inferior and no superior.
No, fool, nature is not alive.
Life emerges from the simple mechanism of attraction/repulsion.
Harmoney/disharmony.
The factor of chaos…randomness, not complexity, is the creative factor.
From chaos, order emerges…due to random interactions.
Back to chaos order returns due to its erosive interactivity - gradually eroding patterns, reducing them back to random energies.
The cycle repeats.
Big Bang - incomplete order, exploding due to chaos… expanding and cooling - eroding its patterned energies.
Random interactions make life emerge, spontaneously…not requiring a creator.
II’s inevitable.
What is life but self-iterating patterns - replenishing energies it is constantly losing - Will to Life.
Will to Will.
How superior can the superior part of a symbiotic relationship be if it requires the inferior part for its existence?
Why evaluate the parts according to superior/inferior, if they are mutually productive?
Because the superior survives by exploiting the inferior.
Ouroboros, fool.
Master/Salve dynamics.
From within nature multiplicities emerge… only the ones able to endure survive and propagate. The rest return to the unconscious flux.
Superior, fool, does not mean godlike.
All value judgements are relative to an objective…in this case survival.
No absolute states, simpleton.
Degrees. Probabilities.
What is superior to one, is inferior to another.
Natural selection.
Not the other way around?
What the flippity flip, goat man!
Life consumes life, simpleton.
It creates and destroys it…
Cycle of life.
The self-existent only gives life.
Life actually never ends.
Death is … just a door/boundary.
Edge, if you will.
Ha!!!
Life does end…and there was a time when there was no life, and there will be a time when there will be no life.
Cycles, simpleton.
This iteration just happened to have the balanced necessary for life, during this phase in its cycle.
Life is not an end, you arrogant bitch.
You are no so precious that you must be eternally preserved.
A secret about all these “humble” minds…their entire worldview is so selfish, so arrogant, that nobody can ever match it.
They’ve outsourced their ego.
Psychotics that believe their are so important, so precious, that they must be preserved for an eternality, and watched over by a supreme being.
A spin-off of the Jew choseness.
Arrogant humility…selfish selflessness…