Mind desires the good and avoids the bad.
x is more important than y means mind can actualize x or y but not x and y and mind desires x.
x destroys y means if x exists then y cannot exist.
A desire x morally contradicts a more important desire y means mind desires y more than x and x destroys y.
A desire x is right means it does not contradict a more important desire y.
Existence must be good and nothing must be more important than existence.
I don’t understand how these are axioms of ethics as opposed to axioms of self-interest.
Ethics is the study of good. These are not axioms of self-interest. The final axiom says:
Existence must be good and nothing must be more important than existence.
It does not say:
Your existence must be good and nothing must be more important than your existence.
Consequently, it can be logical to give up your existence for the sake existence itself. For example, if you’re fighting in a just way against the Nazis, it is rational to give up your existence so that the Nazis are destroyed. It’s the same thing with programmed cell destruction. Cells literally understand that they need to destroy themselves in order for the whole to continue. This is not metaphorical understanding this is literal understanding. However to discuss whether or not cells understand is a separate topic.
The process of priority is probably a form of morality itself.
You describe how one value has to destroy another or at least replace it. That’s priority. In morality we do allot of prioritizing on things. That depends on their value and merit.
OK, so I see how the last axiom relates to ethics by definition because you use the word ‘good’. But the other axioms are just rules about how people desire things, which sounds like self-interest. I mean, your third axiom specifically says that moral contradiction is nothing more than a conflict between two desires.
X sounds like Y does not prove not X is true.
This is not an argument against the 3rd axiom. You’re just reformulating what it says.
What? I was at no point trying to make an argument against your 3rd axiom, did you forget what we’re talking about or something? My point is that your 3rd axiom (and all of them but the last) are about self-interest and not ethics. Given that, they may well be true- I haven’t given it any thought, that’s not what interested me about your formulation. Even your last axiom is only about ethics because you use the word ‘good’- there’s no reason to believe that your ‘good’ is any different from ‘what is desired’ given your previous axioms.
Existence itself needs no priority nor protection.
If you don’t choose what it is that you want to exist, you have no means of deducing any rational behavior at all, moral, ethical, or otherwise.
But by choosing what it is that is to continue existing, you impose constraints on more diverse desires.
What is the highest priority of “ethics”?
Without that answer, every other deduction is meaningless.
When you say priority do you mean comes first?
How can something come before existence?
I suspect that 117938a may actually be a psychopath: he shows absolutely no ability to understand an argument offered by another person. E.g., the above exchange where 117938Aa ignores the actual content of the criticism.
Er, welcome to the internet?
- Anyone who does not make an argument in a philosophy forum can be ignored.
- Physbang does not make an argument.
- Therefore, physbang can be ignored.
I apologize to everyone for not ignoring that poster. I will try to provide some content.
He makes an argument and provides an example. It an argument ad hominem, as it generalises the criticism (valid in my view) from the one post to a general argument against the poster.
No, physbang begged the question that I “ignore the actual content of the criticism”, he didn’t demonstrate that I did that.
This is cracking me up I’m sorry.
You demonstrate it by ignoring the argument; he merely points it out. It’s clear enough, just from reading the cited post.
Are you going to prove him wrong and address the argument, or keep quibbling in the hope people will get bored/distracted and forget about it?
117, when he “restated” your argument as you put it, what happened was that he put it into other words that are essentially the same but that point to reader toward some of the consequences of your view that weren’t explicit in your expression of it.
So he’s arguing against you on the ground that your view entails negative consequences.
How can you not see that??
lmfao
Uccisore wrote:
your third axiom specifically says that moral contradiction is nothing more than a conflict between two desires.
I wrote:
This is not an argument against the 3rd axiom. You’re just reformulating what it says.
You’re claiming that a “moral contradiction is nothing more than a conflict between two desires” has negative consequences. It does not have negative consequences. A desire is a belief that refers to actualization. Actualization means you make the belief correspond to reality. If your beliefs contradict each other then this is a moral contradiction. This is not a negative consequence. So the 6th axiom says that existence must be good. If you desire to destroy existence then this must be bad.
Im claiming what? I think that a person can have conflicting, even contradictory beliefs and not be a part of a moral dilemma.
You know what the problem really is here? Its that youre formulating syllogisms that only illustrate the transitive property in language or whatever. Your definitions might not be agreed on, and in the end, if all your statements are self referencing ones, then you’ve not really said anything.