Your OP does not contain an argument.
Any post can be ignored.
Posts without arguments can be ignored.
Therefore The OP can be ignored.
This post can be ignored, though it makes an argument. I used one of those big connecting Words.
That said, I Think Ucci made an argument so I hope you will not ignore him Before it is responded to.
Right, but as Ucci Points out, that was not what he was arguing. He was arguing that it seemed like your axioms were only about self-interest on not axioms of ethics. Thus his Point about number Three was not that it had negative consequences, which, for some reason, was your interpretation, but supporting his argument about your OP as a whole. You misunderstood his intention and thought he had Another unstated one…fine. But he then made it clear what his argument was and how what he wrote about axiom Three fit into that argument.
Axioms are not arguments. You make arguments based on axioms. You falsify an axiom by showing that it leads to counterintuitive results.
Yes, this fits with what I said. Which would mean that the OP could be ignored, according to your assertions. According to mine any post can be ignored.
I Think, however, what Ucci was wondering was whether they were axioms of ethics rather than axioms of something else. It is possible if you define good, from the last one, you might be able to make an argument these were in fact axioms of ethics.
You’re right. Let me rephrase what I said:
Axioms are arguments, they are not deductions. You make deductions based on axioms.
Now let’s distinguish arguments from begging the question. A statement begs the question if it uses concepts that are not properly defined. “Proper” is a vague word. We could have a long debate about what it means to properly define something.
Self-interest is argued to be core of many ethical positions, therefore, self-interest is within the scope of ethics and is ethical to some.
Ethics and self-interest don’t need to oppose.
I’m not proposing axioms of self-interest. It clearly says that “nothing must be more important than existence” and it does not say that “nothing must be more important than your existence.”
For real this is true. Great post smears.
Yeah smears great post.
I do believe allot of things are contradictory in our own life. There is “inner conflict”. And that is what keeps people a bit more strong and wild than if they had no inner conflict. Robots don’t have inner conflict. They just do their program.
I agree; you’re proposing axioms of ethics which can be applied to deciphering one’s self-interest. My point to Ucci was that axioms can be both self-interested and ethical.
Nothing must be more important than [the] existence - of what?
Is nothing more important than the existence of hell? Would you will for existence if it only offered hell for it’s inhabitants?
I think this guy can be interested in cookies for himself as well as cookies for other people, but what happens when nothing is more important than the cookies?
Nothing is more important than the existence of cookies? Of eating cookies? Smelling cookies? Baking cookies? Seeing cookies? Sharing cookies?
Oh man, I’m getting an overload here. Oh the cookies. You can do all that and more if you get more cookies. That is why we gotta get more existence too, if we can. Maybe existence is harder to desire than cookies though, because existence is a different abstraction than a simple cookie-object-absolute.
Need. More. Hell. Got them cravings…
In hell they don’t have cookies. You eat dog food and drink tap water.
Greetings 117938Aa
I like the way you think. I admire your program to take the ambiguity out of Philosophy. I feel your project to put the system into a machine; and to make it so simple that a 15-year-old can understand it is a most-commendable project !
However, I’d offer a suggestion for improvement, if you are open to any.
Being is more general than existence. Existence has some substance, and is thus a mode of Being. Reality is more valuable than existence, while Essence is less so. For further detail, see End Note 4 in the booklet, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, a link to which you will find in the signature below.
A belief can be true - in a sense; and be false in a sense …both at once. To say it has to be one or the other, but not both is - to coin a word - dys-systemic.
Have you yet read Dr. Hartman’s paper, HERE hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/
Once you do, let me know what you think… Okay?
Also, can you help formalize the theories of Dr. M. C. Katz, as cited below, and help make the thesis more logical, and thus more persuasive? See especially the Prefaces, the Epilogs, and the footnotes, in order to get the gist of it.
Thank you in advance.
Thank you for your kind words. It’s very rare that philosophers thank me.
It doesn’t matter what name you call the most general thing.
Define substance and mode.
Reality and imaginary are types of existence. I suppose the imaginary has no value since the imaginary is defined as a false belief. And false beliefs must be bad or we would be dead.
Essence is the property a property-bearer must have or it loses its name.
What you mean is a belief can be accurate which means more true than false but not completely false.
We don’t need to coin new words. We have all the words we need.
It is very unlikely that I will read this. Thanks for the suggestion however.
See my pm.
Mind desires the good and avoids the bad. - Who’s Mind? Pedophiles?
x is more important than y means mind can actualize x or y but not x and y and mind desires x. ok
x destroys y means if x exists then y cannot exist. ok
A desire x morally contradicts a more important desire y means mind desires y more than x and x destroys y. ok
A desire x is right means it does not contradict a more important desire y. ok
Existence must be good and nothing must be more important than existence. Says who? You? Ethics?
Anyways how are these “THE” six axioms of ethics. How are they even axioms?
I have the awful feeling that the last axiom is there only to justify bombing abortion clinics.