In a no god world where there are no morals, how does one decide whether to drink water or not?
Living or suicide. Moral question there.
Let’s face it. You’re a closeted moral objectivist…
You either do something (moral objectivism - drinking water) or you simply don’t do something (moral nihilism - not drinking water)
I see you’re still here.
You’re a moral objectivist (closeted one - which is sad)
Personal preference. You like one option better than the other.
I agree. But iambiguous always states that there are objective facts, just not moral ones.
The objective fact about water actually overlaps with a moral fact here. He’s knowingly making a moral decision.
Various problems with the distinction have been pointed out to him. His inconsistencies in applying the distinction have also been pointed out.
But you can’t tell him anything.
The most absurd one is his MORAL PASSION to post about it everyday.
Amoral people don’t post about amorality. Only morally inclined people post about anything.
There is the fracture in broad daylight, and it is that which is embedded in existence (almost said ‘his’) , which fuels an unsolved endless repetition.
But as things stand, they need some degree of modification, we all stand divided in that, to some extent. , we really can only stand united, today’s daily regimen in political moralisn is testament to that.
Bro. You gotta read up on the famous ‘fact/value’ distinction in philosophy and get a feel for the arguments for and against it. Then you gotta decide where you stand… but at least then you’ll understand where the moral relativist… of whatever variety… is coming from. It’s not that moral truths can’t be ‘facts’, but they are a different kind of fact that is often confused with mathematical, logical or empirical facts, which CAN be true for everyone. If the cat is on the fucking mat, this is true also for you. But exactly what I mean by ‘fucking’ mat is more strenuous. Its exclamatory, yes, but if it is conditioned by some disdain for the mat, it’s possible that you not share this disdain, in which case it wouldnt be a ‘fucking’ mat to you.
But you cant do this with the cat being on the mat or not. He either on the mat or he ain’t. And while such a statement might have its quantum ontological problems, the status of its truth either way is certainly not a value judgement.
Promethean wrote: “ the status of its truth either way is certainly not a value judgement.“
You value truth either way. It is certainly a value judgement.
I’ve never met a post modernist/post structuralist/moral nihilist who just says this everyday in every circumstance:
“7it’s ujvg ycphcphc“. To be logically consistent
Why don’t you demonstrate it such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.
The onus is upon you, the biggian, as he who bears the burden of proof; present to me a cat on a mat that is not a cat on a mat to me.
It does not logically follow that because we value the truth (objectively), values are true (objectively). We’ve been through this before. The expression of a value judgement is logically equivalent to either booing or yaying at something… but there is no content to this expression beyond that. In the same way, there isn’t anything you could call ‘good’ about a movie that I’d not be able to deny is good. Adding the adjective ‘good’ to the description, as if it were a property, is the error. If it were a property, I’d not be able to deny it. So, statements about empirical facts in and of the world can be either true or false… as they deal with real properties. Emotive statements, not so. They cant be true or false in the same sense. To believe them to be so would be to make them meaningless. Value statements belong in their own language game. That’s where they’re meaningful. So e.g., when I say that murder is wrong, I’m not talking about some objective quality or property about the act of murder that is ‘wrong’ like a ball is round or like Sally is at the gym is either right or wrong. Instead I’m expressing a peculiar and subtle revulsion at the act through my attitude toward it. But I cant ever say that i should be revulsed by the act in the same way I should be alarmed by my thinking a ball is not round or that Sally wasn’t at the gym (when she was).
But the thing is… you don’t get the more subtle point.
We decide what truth and value are (subjective)…
And in this subjective realm we value language that conveys.
Me, you, iambiguous have all decided that language that conveys is meaningful, valuable and objectively so… otherwise we wouldn’t bother.
What’s 2 choose when we can never be sure whether the cat is still there alive or not, the level of uncertainty. precludes inambigous on spot decisions
Well of course. The act of conversing here and the apparent instances of agreement and dispute are very real.
HOWEVER, if none of us could be sure we meant the same things during this conversing, it wouldnt seem any different anyway.
So to say simply that a conversation happens to carry on, is any proof of some objective ‘set’ of truths they all know and are able to express in conversation, falls woefully short of sufficient verification.
What we need is a bio cybernetic brain wave modulator that delivers a shock anytime a set of listeners/readers express either agreement of disagreement in conversation about what is actually nonsense.
You’d be surprised. Skinner and I did a similar experiment in the fifties. Or was he already dead in the fifties? I dont even remember. The fifties were a blur to me.
I’m sure it’s coming if not already here, without a minimum of presumption
It’s deeper than that. We’ve all agreed to use language even though we may disagree. This is a MORAL imperative to convey something.
We don’t have to make that choice, but we all do make that choice. When something is true for all subjective beings… it’s objective.
Now, I can do something silly with language and say, “language doesn’t exist”, but it’s obviously false.
This is what moral nihilists like iambiguous do in each post…, I’m posting in language that you can understand (a moral decision) BUT!! Morality is not objective,
This comes down to “are you walking your talk?”
People who think language isn’t moral or even neutrally moral have no drive or desire to use it.
Only people who think morality is objective use language.
Doesn’t always mean that the shit they say in language is morally objective … but, it does mean they believe in objective morals.
It’s much easier and consoling for iambiguous to believe in moral nihilism than the objective truth that the world (and existence as a whole) is objectively complete shit right now.
Iambiguous is terrified of the existential abyss. A mere child, scared of innocuous shadows in his bedroom.
It’s not his fragmented self or dasein or whatever is his condition… he hides and runs scared from objective morals because the truth is too much for him to take. He doesn’t and has never opened up.
Iambiguous in all his bluster is just a scared child shaking in the corner.
Adults know that existence is objectively shit. They face it, they do something about it.
Iambiguous cannot stop shaking in terror to do anything, iambiguous is not an adult, but rather a terrified man/child.