Magnus…
sigh
When Einstein’s papers came out, most of the best respected physicists on earth called him a crazy quack. His audience. They tried to ruin his career.
This is einstienian of morality.
Is it possible you just don’t understand?
My argument is so fucking simple dude.
“If every moral statement is false, then your moral objectivity argument is false”
It’s so simple. If you can’t understand something that simple, I have no idea where to go with you.
Why not simply say that you do not know how to explain things?
Is it perhaps because you do not want to admit to yourself (because you’re afraid of the implications) and to others (because you’re afraid of the consequences) that you cannot do something?
That explains why you boast and why you can’t learn how to explain things.
Magnus. Your arguments don’t work. Mine do work.
You’re projecting here.
I know I’m correct, just like Einstein knew he was correct. Almost every physicist in the world came out against him because THEY couldn’t understand it.
Then a solar eclipse came out and it was verified.
You know the story.
Your formulation doesn’t fucking work dude.
How many times do I have to fucking tell you that if all moral statements are false (objective conclusion), that posting any formulation as “a good formulation” is false?
You are missing the point. The point that I made is that if someone you’re trying to convince of your ideas says you’re incomprehensible, you really should believe them that you’re incomprehensible instead of insisting that what you’re saying is “simple” and “perfectly clear”. The fact that you don’t do this indicates that you’re pretty much closed off to external feedback.
What you should be doing is explaining things (or, if you can’t do that, admit that you can’t answer questions and leave it at that.) Instead, what you’re doing is boasting that you’re the Einstein of ethics and unnecessarily repeating yourself.
So which path are you going to take? The path of an insecure person or the path of a normal healthy person? The choice is yours.
Explain it, don’t merely repeat it.
Do what you’re asked to do and not what you feel like doing. If you don’t know what you’re asked to do, ask for clarification.
Not good in what way?!?!?!
Good is a moral judgement. I’m trying so hard not to get mad at you.
If everything is false, morally, then no statements can be good… they’re all bad. If it’s not the statement that’s bad, it’s posting the statement that’s bad. Immoral. By definition!! Extremely simple logic.
Stop projecting on me. You’re trying to make it my fault that you refuse extremely simple, basic logic.
All moral actions = bad (false, untrue)
You say that submitting your argument = good
You’re contradicting yourself.
That’s called cognitive dissonance.
Yes, that’s the question I am asking.
You said that my argument is bad. I am asking “Bad in what way?” There are several different ways in which an argument can be bad. For example, it can be bad because some (or all) of its premises are false. It can also be bad because it’s logically invalid.
Not always. Good arguments aren’t morally good. Good food isn’t morally good either. And so on.
I take it that you’re saying that if all statements are false then all statements are false. That’s not much of an argument. But as it seems, that’s precisely what you’re saying albeit in a rather complicated way. And I do agree it’s true. If X then X. Can’t be disputed. But . . . how does that invalidate my argument? You have yet to explain.
Your fault consists in the following:
You fail to realize that when I say that your writings are incomprehensible I generally mean that they are incomprehensible tp me and not necessarily that they are incomprehensible on average (although I do think, and sometimes say, that they are incomprehensible in this sense too but that’s of secondary importance.)
You fail to realize that in order to move this discussion between the two of us forward, you have to clarify your writings. Merely repeating them won’t do the job. Declaring you’re the Einstein of ethics won’t do the job. Insisting that your writings are “simple” and “perfectly clear” won’t do the job.
You get frustrated precisely because you keep expecting that mere repetition will do the job when in fact it won’t. Get rid of false expectations and you won’t be frustrated. Either admit that you can’t explain things to me OR start actually trying to explain things to me. What you’re doing is dumb and it’s the reason you are on the verge of getting mad.
I never said that all moral actions are bad and I also never said that all moral statements are false. So how can I be contradicting myself?
Fuck dude!
Go back to my VERY first post on this absurdity of yours.
You stated that all moral statements have a truth value (true or false) thus, morality is always objective.
What did I say? I said there’s a loophole - what if all moral statements are false ? Then I said that would make you immoral (by your own definitions!!!) by presenting your argument (bad).
I know what you said. I read that post. The problem is it makes no sense.
Of course it does. It’s a critical mass refutation of your axiom.
You’ve never refuted or addressed this argument directly, you just stated it makes no sense and I’m incomprehensible as a poster with all kinds of issues (because none of your formulations actually are better than the ones I laid out).
Let’s do this in your stupid syllogisms since you seem to like them so much …
1.) Every moral assertion is either true or not regardless of your opinion (You need to prove that by the way, you can’t just assert it)
2.) thus every moral assertion is objective; thus morality is objective
Then I come in and state…
1.) if every moral assertion is proven to be false, than any good or bad decision always solves as bad. Including the decision to POST your ‘proof’
You defeated your own argument dude.
Magnus, at this point, you are being such an ass, I don’t care if you ignore me at this point. I’m only interested in people who give a shit about logic and reason, not post modern trolls.
What axiom?
How can I refute or address an argument if I don’t understand it?
Part of the reason people refuse to make their writings comprehensible is because when you make your writings comprehensible you open them up to criticism. As long as you’re incomprehensible, noone can crticize you because noone can understand you.
I take it that you hate syllogisms because they take effort to write.
I did not merely assert (1). If you go back to this post, you can see that it’s in the conclusion of the argument. So obviously, I presented an argument in favor of it. But of course, that argument may be unsatisfying, requiring one or all of its premises to be supported by an argument. What makes an argument satisfying (i.e. convincing) is a relative thing, differing from person to person, so my general preference is to present the simplest possible argument I can think of and then let the other side tell me whether or not it’s satisfying, and if it’s not, what makes it unsatisfying such that I can develop it in the right direction.
How is my argument worse than your own argument? Your own argument is basically this:
“The reason I call it objective is because if there were no life forms and suddenly life forms emerged; the laws would always be the same.”
That looks worse.
That’s what I say makes no sense. And that’s what I’m asking you to explain (rather than repeat.)
So people who ask you to clarify things are asses and postmodern trolls?
Magnus,
You’re being nicer than I am, but you have to understand, it cannot be explained any simpler, it cannot even be explained more complex… maybe if I change one word it will make sense to you (fuck, who knows).
Your moral objectivity argument rests on all moral statements having a truth value (true or false).
What if they’re all false? What if every moral statement is false? How you don’t understand this is beyond me.
This is a limit flooding/self recursive argument I’m using here.
IF!!! (Notice I use the word “if”)
IF!!! Every moral statement is false, then it is necessarily true that arguing it is false.
It can’t be a GOOD argument and your behavior of posting it can’t be GOOD (by definition) (it’s immoral)
You keep accusing me of all manner of things that you’re the one committing.
If you know how to do it, then yes it can be.
What if they are false? If they are false, it does not follow that they have no truth value. In fact, the very fact they are false (rather than neither true nor false) means they have truth value. And that’s all my argument is saying. It is saying that moral statements have truth value. That’s its conclusion. Here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 0#p2822272
[tab]Let “statement of fact” denote any statement that says that some aspect of the world is such and such.
I interpret “Morality is objective” to mean “For every moral statement (S), its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks its truth value is”.
Argument:
Every statement of fact is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.
Every moral statement is a statement of fact.
Therefore, any given moral statement is either true or false regardless of what anyone thinks its truth value is.[/tab]
Alright, I think I understand what you’re saying now. Good job for making your point clearer.
What you’re saying is that if every moral statement is false then so is “I should share my argument with Ecmandu”. That can be said to be true if we accept that “I should share my argument with Ecmandu” is a moral statement (and not merely an ought statement.) So let’s say it’s true. Yoy then go on to say that because I shouldn’t share my argument with Ecmandu that my argument is necessarily bad i.e. unsound. That’s a big non-sequitur. Just because you shouldn’t present an argument does not mean it’s a bad one (:
Consider “2 + 2 = 4”. We both agree it’s true. What you’re saying is that if expressing that statement is wrong (say in every situation) then it follows that “2 + 2 = 4” is false. But that doesn’t actually follow. A statement can be true and expressing it can be nonetheless wrong in every situation. Its truth value does not depend on how preferrable the act of expressing it and its consequences are. It depends entirely on whether or not it corresponds to reality.
Such as? Being incomprehensible? Repeating my points instead of clarifying them? Not realizing that I should either clarify or give up instead of repeating myself in frustration?
So here’s the deal with the contradiction part.
If you define bad as sharing it, per the hypothetical that they are all false, you will never be a hypocrite if you choose not to share it.
Now… these are lots of ‘ifs’ here. I’m analyzing your argument at one possible limit. Obviously, since we are both moral objectivists … my issue is that your argument has the hypothetical hypocrisy loophole and is thus incomplete. I look at this like math proofs being submitted.
We’re both critiquing each other.
You don’t define the word “bad” as “sharing it”. Rather, you deduce from “Every moral statement is false” that “sharing it” is bad.
Because every moral statement is false, and because “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” is a moral statement, it follows that “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” is also false. That, in turn, means that it’s morally bad to present my argument to Ecmandu.
If it is true that “All moral statements are false” then it is also true that both “I should present my argument to Ecmandu” and “I should not present my argument to Ecmandu” are false. And that’s a logical contradiction. So what that indicates is that it is not possible for all moral statements to be false. In order to solve this problem, you have to replace this statement with a less universal one.
Alright, so what you seem to be saying is that, if you accept that all moral statements are false, then you wouldn’t be a hypocrite if you choose not to share your argument with Ecmandu. We can say that’s true if we turn a blind eye to the fact that the statement “All moral statements are false” also implies that not sharing your argument with Ecmandu is also a wrong thing to do.
For some unknown reason, you think that, in order for me to prove that morality is objective, I have to prove that it is morally right for me to share my arguments with you.
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.