Comments
arch1ter t1_j47pjpv wrote
And it falls with the first strong wind.
Nanomni t1_j48h0zg wrote
Unless it is rooted in a firm foundation.
mcjohnson415 t1_j493y03 wrote
It might not need need a strong foundation if the post to beam shear transfer moments have strong gussets and it will likely need some attachment to resist lateral movement and uplift.
MortalEnemiOfSpeling t1_j4aytai wrote
The symbolism is strong, but the engeneering is stronger
pwnagocha t1_j48mf2a wrote
Unless the previous owner lied about the firmness of the foundation and the hot weather causes the clay foundation to shrink and produce cracks throughout the whole house resulting in a total renovation of the foundation.
drodinmonster t1_j48xuxw wrote
That's why I get my moral principles inspected before I sign the docs.
SirThatsCuba t1_j4a1j52 wrote
Nah I just live on an moral hammock in the ethical tropics. If a storm knocks down my tree I'll just tie to another.
arch1ter t1_j4aqpd8 wrote
That’s why the foundation is the first thing to start.
IAI_Admin OP t1_j462wj9 wrote
Abstract: From the 10 commandments to the Buddhist eight-fold path,traditionally we looked to religion to provide moral rules and values to liveby. Today many would turn instead to self-help books, like Jordan Peterson's 'The 12 Rules for Life', but our need for and attachment to formalised rulebooks for life endures. Yet critics argue all such codes are mistaken attempts to reduce life to a set of ideals, and are doomed to failure.
This debate explores whether having rules to live by is useful and desirable, or oppressive and ineffective.
Sophie-Grace Chappell argues while life can’t be reduced to a rule book, rules are often a useful way of navigating the complexities of life. In particular, argues Chappell, we can use moral rules to help us develop the virtues.
Massimo Pigliucci concurs that we cannot condense how to live into a rule book, but argues that rules are more detrimental than helpful. The rigidity of rules renders them unhelpful in navigating human existence. Moreover, he argues that virtue ethics is not compatible with rule making; the answer to moral questions are often circumstantial.
Simon Baron-Cohen argues that we could reduce morality to the rule of ‘do no harm’. This rule, combined with a compassion-based approach to our experiences of others, could be an effective way of navigating life.
8SFY06 t1_j465zov wrote
One can't condensate it all as to "do no harm". Inaction can also cause harm.
Also, using the trolley dilemma example for the sake of the argument, it isn't there to give you a definitive solution to a problem as old as time. It is there to prove a point, it being: it depends.
Laws (as a set of rules to follow in society in comparison to our personal moral values) are more effective in some places than others, for example, because of a plethora of reasons and not just because of how they were written or how they are enforced, but it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't create them and follow them.
It is tiring to seek these answers and try to apply them to our personal lives because most of us have the "efficient market utilitarian" based approach to suffering, in which we avoid it at all costs while externalizing the labor of it somewhere else without considering the consequences. Point being, as presented by Zizek, paying Starbucks a few cents per cup to fight global warming. As things are, you can't avoid harm. It has to go somewhere.
CoweringCowboy t1_j47faa2 wrote
In the words of the wise Geddy Lee - if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Count-Rarian t1_j47titt wrote
I like to stall on questions from friends by saying it all depends on what I decide.
goes231even t1_j488jn6 wrote
I see Rush lyrics and it's an automatic upvote
RIP Neil
undivided-assUmption t1_j49i7r0 wrote
I completely agree. I kant believe that people think moral absolutism is still relevant in our globally connected world. The only moral principle I can think of that's universal is that one must consciously choose to be happy in a sad world. I like your take on utilitarianism. It's just a regurgitated take on life's lesser of two evils game, huh? It's as if people aren't forced to read Homer in school anymore. Damn, I hate STEM education.
WrongAspects t1_j476hlq wrote
Five of the Ten Commandments are about God himself and how you are not supposed to think about other gods. Apparently jealousy is half of morality
grandoz039 t1_j4bjlcq wrote
3 of them, if you're Catholic
LepaTheWarrior t1_j49bxz0 wrote
This is a pretty weak take. For the sake of the argument assume that the old testament is 100% accurate. What is the outcome for the Hebrews every time they forget their God and start worshipping idols? It's not good things, let me tell you that much. You can of course disagree on the accuracy of the old testament, but the internal logic is clearly not that God gives one of the 10 commandments out of jealousy.
WrongAspects t1_j4alsoh wrote
It’s not one of the commandments. Half of the commandments are about God himself.
BTW none of the commandments forbid rape or slavery out child abuse.
FaufiffonFec t1_j4qf9ep wrote
Oh come on stop splitting hairs for 5 minutes. These are just details. Look at the bigger picture : God Loves You !
(And he needs MONEY !)
no2K7 t1_j4705up wrote
That "do no harm" is close enough to my own. I navigate life by not invading people's boundaries, unless they want, or seem to require a hand.
Life's easy that way, you be you and I be I without interference from one another, and when we die we die, none of these rules and crap will have relevance then.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j4dgtvl wrote
>unless they want, or seem to require a hand
So whenever you decide that they seem to want or require a hand, the rule is off.
Pretty convenient rule.
no2K7 t1_j4eg1nh wrote
Unless they want. Or seem to require a hand (some people don't ask for help simply to not cause discomfort in other's, it's a nice gesture when you do things for others that they need but would never expect).
thismightbsatire t1_j47n3w9 wrote
A true philosopher gains knowledge from others and then formulates their own philosophical thoughts. Reading regurgitated references only proves one is well read. Even though your thoughts were presented properly, I can't help but wander; were you STEM educated?
Are you people not familiar with hermeneutics, or are you interpreting my comment wrong?
Please tell me you understand Hegel's dialectic method of learning 🙏
LepaTheWarrior t1_j49cgj4 wrote
Do no harm is quite vague, sometimes causing harm serves a higher moral purpose, for example the punishing of criminals. Call me biased but I think "Love your neighbours as yourself" and "Love God above all else".
GreenHoodie t1_j476zxr wrote
The way I've heard this put is:
Moral systems are like bridges. Any bridge will break when under enough stress, but that doesn't mean they're not useful.
undivided-assUmption t1_j4998p0 wrote
Well put 👏
FireingHex t1_j46axxm wrote
Life is a combination of knowledge, morals, norms, rules and everything in between.
To navigate life and to be as knowledgeable as possible you need to have *your own personal belief system, your ideology, if you must your religious beliefs, and abide by societal rules. *
As a commenter below said “Four walls and a roof isn’t a house, but it protects you from the rain”.
Having some universal rules and beliefs isn’t a full life, but it’s something to go by. You build the “house” (aka your life) by adding little stuff inside and making it a home.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46p71j wrote
To navigate life and to be as knowledgeable as possible you want a grasp of what is real and what is myth. Horse and pegasus.
[deleted] t1_j46rlc9 wrote
[deleted]
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46tfaw wrote
(sigh) A myth is a fiction believed by a large number of people (in the present or in the past) to be a non-fiction. So masturbation causing blindness, alligators thriving in the sewers of New York and Zeus being the cause of lightning while ruling the gods of Mount Olympus.
So no, I'm not misusing the word myth.
EDIT: Your "According to you, nothing is real" nonsense... (sigh) trolling or strawman argument or both, aye, there lies the rub.
GroundedMystic t1_j499dsd wrote
You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”
You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms), seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list.
You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction. But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,” yet a Pegasus is a concept. In what sense is it a “myth” then? That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind? Do other concepts? Do horses?
Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact, and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j49kbo7 wrote
>"You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”"
I don't recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, "value" is not real and nihilism is stupid.
>"You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms),"
Did I say they were exact antonyms? Does it matter to my point? I don't think it matters to my point.
>"seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list."
Then you either don't understand what I'm saying or you're smarter than me in which case I would ask you to enlighten me where I am inconsistent.
>"You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.”
Technically I am using pegasus as a symbol of a fictional thing more than example of myth but sure, the general point is that to the ancient Greeks the pegasi were like the alligators thriving in the New York sewers.
>"Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."
...as in people today? Yes, people today see pegasi as fictional. That's the point. That's why I used them.
"But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,”"
Hhohh boy. Yes, all concepts are real concepts. There's no such thing as a fictional concept.
>"yet a Pegasus is a concept."
The concept of the pegasus is a concept, yes. The concept of the horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from just being a concept. If it didn't a horse would be a fictional thing. This is my point. This is why I used horse and pegasus.
>"In what sense is it a “myth” then?"
Because the ancient Greeks believed pegasi were non-fictional flying around somewhere. This is how Zeus and the New York sewer alligators are different from Harry Potter and James Bond.
>"That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind?"
Harry Potter and James Bond don't exist outside our imagination and are therefore fictions. Basically no one thought they were not fictions so they're not myths.
>"Do other concepts? Do horses?"
Concepts exist outside our minds as abstract things. And at risk of beating a dea... hrm, horses exist outside our minds as they are not fictions.
So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me. In other words, what you just had me do above? That was me breaking down the most basic things and mansplaining it because it seemed you barely knew how a concept works e.g. how the concept of Superman existing as a concept differs from Superman existing in real life and from Superman existing as a fictional character in the imagination.
>"Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact"
Not baselessly.
>"and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged."
Not quite, I display exasperation with the immaturity I have on occasion been presented with. I ENJOY being challenged on the intellectual logical level. Instead I have been receiving responses like the following:
>"According to you nothing is real and everything is a myth." --FireingHex
(That's strawman argument if not an outright lie)
>"Like “organisms don’t need to live”. Okay? Go ahead and don’t" --FireingHex
(That's telling me to go kill myself)
>"You are free to believe life is pointless and humanity is not the center, but what is life's point then?" --FireingHex
(That's outright stupidity. What to even call it, an inverse tautological question?)
GroundedMystic t1_j49tq7d wrote
> I don’t recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, “value” is not real…
I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments - better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement.
> The concept of a horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from the concept.
Prove this.
> Concepts exist outside of our minds as abstract things.
Another assumption.
> Morality exists outside your mind.
Another assumption.
It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism, which is a fine place to avoid setting up camp; I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours. This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object. More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be.
> So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me.
Where did I say I was smarter than you, and how is that even relevant? The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas. The ideas should have merit on their own, and “stand trial” as you say. Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect. The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4a3fym wrote
>"I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments"
Okay, I see that.
>"- better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement."
Would it be a "value statement" to say that we navigate better when we are not hallucinating things that are not there? I don't think so, seems to be more about the nature of what navigation is to me. Kind of like seeing works better if you're not cutting your eyes with a razor blade at the time.
>"Prove this."
No. You know what a horse is. There are only about seven things we can know for certain exists beyond doubt i.e. not as parts of some 'The Matrix-type illusion' but this is not a conversation about "Are we on a planet or more like brains in a jar fed sensory data?"
>"Another assumption."
(sigh) No, it is not. Imagine we went extinct then a hundred years later aliens land and pick up a Superman comic. They decipher English and begin to grasp it is about a humanoid from another planet that came to this planet and from its Sun gained powers beyond the local humanoids. Communication is the sharing of concepts. Concepts are one of the few indestructible things there are. They can be lost to us physical beings but they can never be destroyed.
>"Another assumption."
No, rape is evil, this is not something just in our minds, that is objective fact. It would remain true if we humans went extinct and then ages later some other species got the exact same sapience as us and rape existed just like now. 'Rape is evil' would remain true today even if all life in the universe had gone extinct a very long time ago.
>"It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism"
I don't care about labels and clubs like that.
>"I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours."
I don't care about "philosophical minds of the past". I don't care if it was David Hume that said "You cannot get an ought from an is" or someone else, what I care about is what that means and how it fits with what else I understand about the truth.
>"This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object."
What do I care, if you can't even follow the logic of the person you are speaking with without going "You can't say that is fact because no one can prove it." and "Those are assumptions you're making, you can't possibly know them to be facts." etc.?
>"More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be."
Nothing ever "must" be done. Our ancestors could have gone sterile and our species would be extinct by now.
>"Where did I say I was smarter than you,"
You didn't.
>"and how is that even relevant?"
Did you just skim my last post for things to go "Prove it." and "No one can know that yet and no one might never figure it out." about?
>"The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas."
I wasn't talking about your ideas, I was (obviously) talking about your post prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth. Observe;
You said this: "You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."
This, what you were referring to, was what I cited: "A myth is a fiction believed by a large number of people (in the present or in the past) to be a non-fiction."
It's right there: or in the past. The past includes ancient Greece.
So your ideas (or them getting special credence) have zip to do with you making me go "Did this person leave their brain at home or am I being trolled with feigned ignorance?"
>"The ideas should have merit on their own,"
"Should" is a myth. And I guess "merit" would be too since it would be a form of "deserving" which is (drum roll) another myth.
>"and “stand trial” as you say."
I don't think that's the same as what I was referring to. I was referring to them standing trial to be decided as fiction or non-fiction, not if they "merit" something. But I guess you don't mean it like that, you mean in terms of plausibility and truth in which case I take it back, it is the same.
>"Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect."
That on other hand is wise of you. I hope that is true of me as well.
>"The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid."
I was not saying you were incoherent.
GroundedMystic t1_j4ab0xd wrote
Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review. I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical. These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study! That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me.
In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic! Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?
For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter. I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either. I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.
In any case, if this be the beginning of your philosophical journey, then I implore you to at least entertain other ideas and continue to examine your own; if this be the end, then I hope there is peace in your resolute thoughts.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4b3d0m wrote
>"Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review."
Not at all, you're missing my point; If you're not even awake enough to actually correctly read the sense of myth I cited or take on board anything I've said about concepts then you're giving me no indication that you're trying for anything but to troll with feigned ignorance and strawman arguments.
>"I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical."
I didn't say they were*, I'm saying you're (possibly deliberately) misreading what I've said and asking for proof that belongs in a different conversation ("Is everything an illusion?")
>"These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study!"
Yes, but you're clearly not understanding why I shrug them off in terms of this conversation.
>"That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me."
What do I care? I'm saying I don't care what club you're in in terms of this conversation because that has no bearing on there being inconsistencies in what I've said.
>"In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic!"
I know but what do I care? Rape is objectively evil, it still would be if there were only two lifeforms in the universe or zero lifeforms in the universe. And I've more or less said that already so it was decidedly not without argument.
>"Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?"
That depends on which conclusion is in question.
>"For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter."
I didn't say you were doing that particularly or for that particular reason.
>"I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either."
I didn't say you prompted me to break down any rudimentary concepts for you so that's more (deliberate?) misreading from you. I said "prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth."
In other words, I had already broken down the rudimentary concept of myth.
>"I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.".
That crux is you've been Mr Magoo from the getgo and all throughout and never getting to any actual inconsistencies due to just trying to invoke neighboring but irrelevant philosophical issues.
In other words: Brother, you asked me to prove horses are real. So asking I prove atoms and radiation are real when I was saying breaking a mirror unleashing seven years bad luck is not the same as splitting the atom unleashing radiation, the former is a fiction and a myth. You said "I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical." You said this with a straight face?
- Until now.
[deleted] t1_j46ojgh wrote
[deleted]
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46ef1a wrote
Three inaccuracies in your post:
-
Nothing is ever "needed" since "need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than the drowned corpse "needs" to avoid becoming a drowning man... or becoming a time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings.
-
"Rules" are also a myth. The "rules" of playing chess do not float around the players invisible like Casper the friendly ghost, we simply pretend they exist for practical reasons.
-
"Must" is yet another myth. "Imperatives" never exist outside the imagination the same way "need/necessity" and "importance" (and "value") never do. The universe simply does not revolve around us organisms, all life on this planet could have ended before there were even dinosaurs.
Proponentofthedevil t1_j46h0v5 wrote
Can I ask you what you think exists or isn't a myth? Or at least why you think calling something a myth is a way to dismiss anything? I dont understand what you're going for here. Its kind of incoherent but within the realm of perhaps "sounds smart to someone"
[deleted] t1_j46hwqz wrote
[deleted]
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46lfhn wrote
Nihilism is stupid and how am I ("We humans think the universe revolve around us organisms, how egomaniac is that?") the narcissist here? :-)
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46mlr2 wrote
--Some examples of non-imaginary things--
Humans
Horses
Danger
Thoughts
Emotions
Concepts
Language
Communication
Justice and Injustice
Rape
Meaning/Patterns/Consequences
The Truth
Accuracy/Right and Inaccuracy/Wrong
Morality
Good/Benevolence and Evil/Malevolence
Utility
Societies (people being socially structured)
Civilizations (people telling white lies in fear of losing social structure)
Landmasses
Racism
--Some examples of imaginary things--
Kryptonians
Hippogriffs
Santa Claus
Names and Labels (though this might be arguable)
"Necessity/Need"
"Imperatives"
"Rules"
"Laws" and "Crimes"
"Murder"
"Purpose"
"Deserving"
"Should"
"Value"
"Money"
"Owning"/"Property"
"Theft"
(The list is longer, e.g. "Justification" and "Authority", but you get the idea)
FreshEclairs t1_j4781uo wrote
There’s a lot of flaws here, IMO.
One example: you list danger as a real thing, but necessity/need as an imaginary thing.
Isn’t the existence of danger predicated on the existence of some need?
If my need for survival is imaginary, how can a threat to it be real?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j47974i wrote
"Flaws" are yet another myth, "imperfection" and "perfection" are two sides of the same myth. Say you're on a deserted island; the bowl with a big crack in it can be used for filtration and the bar-brawl-tested half-smashed bottle can be used to cut things. Them being "flaws" exists only in our imagination.
"Your" parked car can be at threat of getting hit by a runaway bus. Does your car have a "need" for not-hit-by-bus-ness?
(Huh, that almost makes it sound like I'm saying survival is imaginary. :-) )
FreshEclairs t1_j47d1rd wrote
>"Flaws" are yet another myth, "imperfection" and "perfection" are two sides of the same myth.
Fine, call them inconsistencies.
>"Your" parked car can be at threat of getting hit by a runaway bus. Does your car have a "need' for not-hit-by-bus-ness?
The only reason that's a danger/threat (and not the same thing as two air molecules bumping into one another) is because I want/need my car, and the people on the bus want/need to not be in an accident.
You're trying to build a philosophical system that has no internal consistency.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j47ja6m wrote
>"Fine, call them inconsistencies."
Then prove to me how I'm inconsistent. Ask yourself, do I seem like I would troll you and not admit when you're making good points?
>"The only reason that's a danger/threat (and not the same thing as two air molecules bumping into one another) is because I want/need my car"
(sigh) How does one "need" a car? 3.4 million years of Stone Age, 6,000 years of Stone Age, 300,000 years of homo sapiens, cars have been around for about a century, I say we humans don't even "need" oxygen in order to breathe oxygen, that that is (for lack of a better term) a self-delusion, and your contribution to a philosophical conversation amounts to "Well, I need my car so NYAH!"
The air molecules bumping into eachother does not involve danger because there would be no consequences. If it was matter and anti-matter on the other hand...
>"and the people on the bus want/need to not be in an accident."
I didn't say there was anyone on the bus since it's irrelevant. My question was about your car having a "need". You say you have "needs", I say you don't, that is the conversation. Danger is a real abstract thing, this planet could have been in danger of a giant asteroid basically splitting it in two before there was any life on it. Does the planet have a "need" to not be split in two? No, just like I do not have a "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse if you chain me up and toss me in the ocean. "Need" is just one of our many egomaniac self-delusions to make the universe revolve around us in our minds when it just simply does not.
(Which is okay by the way, life is meaningful regardless.)
>"You're trying to build a philosophical system that has no internal consistency."
So you claim but so far I see no evidence you can back up that claim.
Yeah, gauntlet thrown. Identify my inconsistencies for me, I would (and I swear this on my life) be happy to know them.
FreshEclairs t1_j47mahv wrote
I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need.
An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”
I don’t think you’re trolling.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j47qu5t wrote
>"I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need."
No, you didn't since there is no such predication. You're willfully ignoring my point about the car and the bus and the planet and the asteroid. The planet would be in danger of being split in two, that has absolutely nothing to do with organic life existing on it yet so has nothing to do with any organic life's egomaniac myths about "need/necessity".
The rain forests being in danger of disappearing has nothing to do with being organic or alive or if other lifeforms exist (EDIT: Okay, the latter was really bad phrasing but you get the gist). Latin was in danger of becoming a dead language and then one day it was.
>"An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”"
Right, I question things so I'm a right up there with "They're abducting cows, man!" and "They shot Kennedy, dude!" (sarcasm) :-)
>"I don’t think you’re trolling."
Good.
Proponentofthedevil t1_j46yaj1 wrote
Then how are "needs" "rules" or even the word "must" not real? When you include higher concepts like ownership, or abstractions like money? Do these words not fall into things like "concepts" "language" "justice" "value" etc... you don't appear to be applying this consistently. You seem to just arbitrarily consider certain things completely unlike the things, I guess you like? So its hard to take seriously.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46zqxy wrote
(sigh) Of course they all fall under concepts. Zeus throwing lightning bolts is a concept, that doesn't make it a non-myth. Harry Potter playing quidditch is a concept. The concept of horse is a real concept and the concept of pegasus is a real concept, all concepts are real, there's no such thing as a fictional concept.
Also, I never said the WORD "must" is not real, it's a word. Quidditch is a word, myth is a word and Kryptonian is a word.
EDIT: Sorry for sighing, it's not personal.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4714bu wrote
It's not arbitrarily considered. If a pegasus does nothing outside our imagination it is a fiction. A horse does something outside our imagination as does danger and English. "Money" and "ownership" do nothing outside our imagination, they are not objective or subjective, they are imaginary.
It's dirt simple.
Proponentofthedevil t1_j47b3gf wrote
Then what is justice without myth? How do you explain to me what it is without some sort of narration? Is there something inherently wrong to the idea of a myth/narration?
Money does have direct influence. You can use it to influence others, purchase things, or whatever. It may be a concept, but it affects us in real ways. "Do nothing" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j47ehl1 wrote
>"Then what is justice without myth?"
Justice is mankind's search for an equality that is not absurd. It has nothing to do with myth.
>"How do you explain to me what it is without some sort of narration?"
Clearly (as seen above) easily. :-)
>"Is there something inherently wrong to the idea of a myth/narration?"
Not at all. Why do you ask? Seriously, I'm curious as to what I said that makes you think I was suggesting something that... broadsweeping.
>"Money does have direct influence."
No, it only affects through the imagination. Take a moment and think about it. The coins in "your" pocket, are they still "in date" or do you want to go online to check if people will trade you something for them or tell you to take them to the bank since THEY might?
>"You can use it to influence others, purchase things, or whatever."
"Purchasing" would be a myth so... And a thing can influence without being real, just look at kids running around with towels on their backs pretending to fly and shoot beams from their eyes.
>"It may be a concept, but it affects us in real ways."
Are you talking about it itself or its concept? The concept of Superman, Zeus or Odin affects us in real life but Superman, Zeus or Odin themselves affect us only through the imagination (as fictions do).
>""Do nothing" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?"
Obviously I do not.
TrueBeluga t1_j48wid3 wrote
In what way is value non-imaginary? Value exists only in the mind, it is something imagined. Same with morality, or moral evil/good. Or are you using a different definition of imaginary?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j49gj62 wrote
>Same with morality, or moral evil/good. Or are you using a different definition of imaginary?
Morality exists outside the mind. Good and evil that is, not "morally right" and "morally wrong", in the latter sense I would agree.
TrueBeluga t1_j4bmqop wrote
In what way does it exist outside of the mind? Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans. If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4bparq wrote
>"In what way does it exist outside of the mind?"
In a nutshell; benevolence and malevolence exist objectively hence good and evil exist objectively hence morality (moral and immoral) exists objectively.
>"Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans."
The concept of the horse is not the same thing as the horse.
And arguably a dinosaur choosing to eat another dinosaur alive when it could kill it was strictly speaking evil.
>"If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?"
The same way it always exists; Rape would be immoral because it would be evil because it would be malevolent. That there is no longer anyone in existence to be malevolent or benevolent does not erase that from reality. Nor did organic life bring it into reality, it was always there.
Kind of like... hmm... "Organic life would grow because organic life would have genetics." Organic life actually existing is irrelevant.
TrueBeluga t1_j4byry7 wrote
>benevolence and malevolence exist objectively
Do they? What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence? In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound. Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is. The existence of benevolence or malevolence has no effect on this. If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad, but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4c4s3h wrote
>"Do they?"
Yes.
>"What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence?"
The definition for the Sun used to involve "orbits the Earth" so I will say this instead:
You know what they are. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy is not benevolence.
>"In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound."
I disagree. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.
>"Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is."
No, because "should" is a myth.
>"If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad"
You mean "morally good" and "morally bad"? Why would I bother with that? I already have this: Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.
Why would I involve it being "objectively morally bad" when "bad" immediately leans into subjective thought, "Objectively bad for what? The arms? The victim's feelings? The universe? Social coexistence?" In other words: Bad has to do with consequences (which leads into the idea of utilitarianism) or it has to do with (for lack of better phrasing) universal "laws" (which leads into the idea of deontology).
>"but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective."
Nothing is ever "required", "requirement/need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "require" air to avoid becoming a drowned corpse, he desires to avoid it and can't avoid it without air consequentially he desires air. The "requiring" is just a fictional relationship in his imagination.
TrueBeluga t1_j4c6fo6 wrote
>Nothing is ever "required"
I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic.
>No, because "should" is a myth.
Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective. What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious. But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do. If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say.
>i.e. me being evil and immoral.
This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm). I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence. If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4cltkm wrote
>"I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic."
I already understood what you meant and I apologize for my rigid stance on certain things overriding diplomacy.
Someone elsewhere just suggested "logically entails" as a surrogate that wouldn't provoke my "logical dislike".
>"Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective."
No. It is neither subjective or objective, it is imaginary. It is a myth.
>"What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious."
False. There is nothing any person "should" do. Nothing in the universe "should" do anything differently than what it is doing nor "should" it be doing whatever it is doing.
>"But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do."
Then philosophy is doomed to never get to the truth as it does not involve actually pursuing it, it just goes chasing its own tail.
>"If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say."
You're saying "most people educated in philosophy" are so stupid they can't anticipate a stranger's idea of morality may not conform to that of their philosophy teachers'.
>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth."
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>"I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence."
Sure but how do you disagree? You can disagree with me saying the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa.
>"If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective."
Kindly explain that to me. I am saying that the universe doesn't care about the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sees it no different from Jack the Ripper butchering women in London or you killing a fly... however, the malevolence of the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the victimizing of the people) is tempered by the circumstantal elements of benevolence (ending WWII sooner) which leads to the debate of it being moral or immoral to drop those nukes.
Levels of benevolence and malevolence -> levels of good and evil -> How moral or immoral?
That's what I'm saying. What are you saying? That the universe has an opinion on what the U.S. President "should" have done?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4fgolc wrote
>This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm).
But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing. You can fail to cause harm while you were being malevolent. In fact some use the word malevolence for just the desire or inclination to do harm.
I am arguing morality is about good and evil. Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm and doing good would be its opposite, benevolence + preventing/undoing (or actively trying to prevent/undo) harm. Being immoral would be doing evil without a certain amount of doing good as "extenuating circumstances" and vice versa (i.e. a moral person is a person who tries to do as little evil as possible and if they cannot avoid doing evil they try to do good at the same time).
That you're saying "Well, that's only true if you define the word morality that way!" seems like semantics to me. I'm arguing that this was true before organic life came along and language even existed.
I can use made up words: Instead of morality we have rockapootity, instead of good and evil I have nicootan and baroom. It would still be the same thing: If lifeforms ever exist in this lifeless universe then a rockapootital person would be a person who tries to do as little baroom as possible and if they cannot avoid doing baroom they try to do nicootan at the same time. A society of lifeforms of exclusively doing baroom would quickly go under, a society of lifeforms of exclusively nicootan would thrive so a society trying to be the latter would organize standards to promote nicatoon and frown on baroom. The most rockapootital person in that society may be following those standards or deviating from them depending on how good those standards were made since those standards could be very poorly made.
EDIT: If the last part is unclear the most rockapootital person can say "These standards suck, they result in this baroom and this baroom." and the society can go "Oh, that person's right. We thought this was how to be the most rockapootital people we could be but clearly it's time to revise. You have done your society a very nicootan service."
TrueBeluga t1_j4httvk wrote
>But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing
My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example.
>Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm
I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you. You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way. On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil. You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad. My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want. This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition. Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence", and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality when you've provided no good reason for me to.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4ifanr wrote
>"My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example."
Ah, I see.
>"I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you."
You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"? "Should" and "must" are myths. You can disagree with me about the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of the other way around but that is not participating in a philosophical conversation which I thought was what we were doing.
>"You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way."
It's not really about defining. Definitions are just for language as, if I haven't said this already, the definition for the Sun used to include "orbits the Earth".
>"On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil."
There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth. But to answer you; Wrong, that is what morality is. If you're malevolently doing harm without some benevolence to "balance it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.
>"You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad."
No, you can't (and be correct, that is) and I just explained how that is not the case in my last post but I'll try again:
If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.
This is Jack The Ripper butchering women out of sadistic serial killer joy.
It has nothing to do with right and wrong (right and wrong according to who or what?) or good and bad (good and bad for who or what?). Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is right or wrong? Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is a good thing or a bad thing?
The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.
Let me do it again:
In the Judeo-Christian mythology, God said "Let there be light." and there was light, the first thing in the universe.
Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else e.g. Lucifer or Adam or Eve or the apple) is right or wrong? Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else) is a good thing or a bad thing?
Again the answer to those two questions are: No one and nothing does.
>"My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want."
Again, definitions is about language. I'm talking about what's real and what's not. "Morally wrong" and "morally bad" do not exist.
>"This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition."
See my point about the Sun above.
>"Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence","
Why would I care? I'm talking to you, not them. I'm not talking to Plato or David Hume or your philosophy teacher or anybody else.
>"and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality"
I am not asking you to "suddenly agree" with anything I've said, we're having a conversation.
And to beat a dead horse, definitions are just about language, communication lifeform to lifeform. It doesn't change the facts e.g. that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.
>"when you've provided no good reason for me to."
I have not tried to provide a good reason for you to agree with my personal definition of morality like I'd for example try to convince you to start using the definition of "a few" as 2-4 things and the definition of "several" as 3-9 things.
What I've done is descibe what I have (with logic, as I understand the term) concluded morality to actually factually be. If you choose to simply believe (for your own reasons) that I have jumped to that conclusion, there is no "imperative" for you to do otherwise and there is no "should", you are free to simply ignore me like people ignored Galileo saying the Earth orbits the Sun.
If you (or anyone else, living or dead) believe/believed they can disprove my explanation I am happy to examine their logic just like you (or they) are free to examine mine.
TrueBeluga t1_j4ir2o1 wrote
>You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"?
No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason. Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say? Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness. So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume.
>There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth
Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said.
>morality to actually factually be
How have you logically proven this at all? Morality is a word with a definition. You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually. This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is:
"If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person"
The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that.
>The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.
No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real. That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place. In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic:
- Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)
- "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)
- Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)
This is logically sound. If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond. I sadly just don't have the time in the day or the patience to sift through looking for any actual deductive arguments.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4l2ffb wrote
>"No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason."
But I don't understand what you mean by bringing it up. If you had out of the blue said that you have no reason to survive, would you be trying to imply you no longer desire to survive or even that you desire the opposite, to die?
Or would you just be agreeing with me that organisms neither "should" or "must" survive (which would be absolutely redundant and be like out of the blue telling me you're human or that we're on reddit)?
Or would you be trying to imply that I have failed to provide you with a reason to survive rather than remain suicidal?
Because I have no interest in giving you a reason to do anything.
I have no interest in giving you a reason to agree with me that the Earth orbits the Sun, my interest would be in having a conversation about whether or not it does.
In other words, I am not here to give you a reason to agree with me or stop eating sugar or go kill yourself or to not go kill yourself. I have not been trying to do any of those things because I have no reason to do them. Can you give me a reason to do one of those things? How about I give you a gun to put to my head, would that change something?
Am I putting a gun to your head and demanding you agree with anything I say? No, I am simply having a conversation with you about a subject and that subject is "Does morality exist outside the mind?" I am arguing it does because you argued it doesn't, that's it. Anything beyond that, your agreement etc. that (in a nutshell) ain't none a' my beeezwax.
>"Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say?"
There was no assumption. In short: There was a question and then a 'in case'.
>"Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness."
That's not quite how it works.
Me: The Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.
You: I don't agree and I see no reason to do so. If I had such a reason it would provide proof that the Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.
Me: The reason would? Isn't that kind of backwards? Cart before the horse? Isn't it that good enough proof of X being true MAY BE reason alone for you to agree that X is true?
EDIT: Note that I stuck with the word "agree" despite your just switching to the word "believe".
>"So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume."
See above.
>"Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said."
That's not quite true although of course I get the gist. You don't seem to get the gist of what I'm saying; that you're still using the term "necessarily" in our conversation as if I'm to still to conform to what it implies.
>"How have you logically proven this at all?"
Read on.
>"Morality is a word with a definition."
You're just going to willfully ignore what I've said about definitions, huh?
>"You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually."
Read on.
>"This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is: "If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person""
Yes.
>"The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that."
Understood but read on.
>"No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real."
That was not what I was saying there. I was eliminating morality being about "should" and "right/wrong".
>"That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place."
Exactly.
>"In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic: 1. Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)
>2. "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)
>3. Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"
Yes, except right and wrong are not imaginary e.g. there's accurate and inaccurate just to give one example, so the second premise does not hold without rephrasing.
>"This is logically sound."
Except for the problem with the second premise.
>"If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond."
Please hold... (grumbles: Man, I'm gonna type this whole thing out in a very inefficient way, I just know it!)
TrueBeluga t1_j4mqhck wrote
>Except for the problem with the second premise.
For someone who complains about me talking about semantics, you sure do like to complain about semantics a whole lot. I can rephrase that easily to fix it. Here is the fixed second premise, ""Should", "moral right," and "moral wrong" are imaginary (premise)" (moral right and moral wrong, in this case, are defined as the usage of right and wrong associated not with accuracy or direction, but the definitions used in moral philosophy).
>You're just going to willfully ignore what I've said about definitions, huh?
Because what you've said about definitions is incoherent and unsupported. I literally had no idea how to respond to it because when you talked about definitions, you didn't make an actual logical argument. I cannot critique an argument that has not been made.
>No, I am simply having a conversation
Yes, and in this specific conversation we are having an arguments. Arguments have reasons. When I say I have no reason, I mean you have provided no reasons, and thus your argument is logically unsound. That is what that means. Stop with this silly "should is a myth" semantics. I'm not talking about that right now, so stop arguing with me about random stuff I haven't even brought up.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4odm5m wrote
>"For someone who complains about me talking about semantics, you sure do like to complain about semantics a whole lot."
From my side it's not really a question of semantics since semantics concerns the meaning of the words.
>"I can rephrase that easily to fix it. Here is the fixed second premise, ""Should", "moral right," and "moral wrong" are imaginary (premise)" (moral right and moral wrong, in this case, are defined as the usage of right and wrong associated not with accuracy or direction, but the definitions used in moral philosophy)."
You haven't fixed it, you've done this:
-
Star Wars is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by pop culture experts to be about "aliens", "robots", and "an omnipresent psychic force" (premise)
-
"Aliens", "R2-D2" and "The Force" are imaginary (premise) (R2-D2 and The Force, in this case, are defined as the usage of robots and omnipresent psychic force associated not with minesweepers or parapsychology, but the definitions used in pop culture).
-
Therefore, Star Wars as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"
It works in general because it's Star Wars but it doesn't hold up when it's scifi in general and you have advanced technology in the first premise and rayguns and perpetual motion machines in the second premise so you can conclude scifi is about nothing real (implying scifi itself isn't real).
>"Because what you've said about definitions is incoherent and unsupported. I literally had no idea how to respond to it because when you talked about definitions, you didn't make an actual logical argument. I cannot critique an argument that has not been made."
You couldn't grasp the obvious implication of these fifteen words? The definition for the Sun and the stars used to include "They orbit the Earth."
>"Yes, and in this specific conversation we are having an arguments. Arguments have reasons. When I say I have no reason, I mean you have provided no reasons, and thus your argument is logically unsound."
Again, you're making that same dance.
I could say "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun hence the Moon orbits the Sun." and you could go "I don't agree and I see no reason to agree with you." or "I have no reason to believe that, if I did it would provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness." without even reading my argument through.
Let me put it this way: I don't care about your agreeing with what orbits what or you believing what orbits what. I don't mind you questioning my logic when I say "X orbits Y." but what you're doing is not understanding (or perhaps pretending to not understand) that definitions come out of books written by us humans for the sake of talking about things, the universe did not write those books for us humans describing its inner workings for us to eventually decipher.
In other words, imagine if Galileo had said "The books say the Sun orbits the Earth so no reason to look in that telescope for myself or look at why the math doesn't add up, smarter people than me would have done better in the past and if they couldn't it will take the smart people of the distant future to solve it."?
>"Stop with this silly "should is a myth" semantics."
It's not semantics. Semantics is about meaning e.g. "What do we mean by the word dog?", not reality/fiction e.g. "Are dogs fictional?" is not a question about semantics. "Should" is a fiction.
>"I'm not talking about that right now, so stop arguing with me about random stuff I haven't even brought up."
It's not random. You're the one bringing those myths up e.g. that I "have to" do X in order to fulfill Y of making a logical argument which is ironic since "imperatives" are not logical. :-)
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4l3ge8 wrote
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally harm eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional harming of others exists (conclusion)
​
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally protect eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional protection of others exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional protection of others exists (premise)
-
Benevolence (behaviour exhibiting a kind/charitable/altruistic attitude, good will, wishing others well) exists (premise)
-
Benevolently protecting others is good (opposite of evil) (premise)
-
Therefore, good (opposite of evil) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional harming of others exists (premise)
-
Malevolence (behaviour exhibiting a hostile/spiteful attitude, ill will, wishing ill on others) exists (premise)
-
Malevolently harming of others is evil (premise)
-
Therefore, evil exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize good (premise)
-
A person can recognize evil (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) is that person's morality (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (personal morality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize good (premise)
-
A person can recognize evil (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be evil (or even try to) is that person's immorality (premise)
-
Therefore, immorality (personal immorality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to harm eachother in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, benevolence and malevolence will exist in the future (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people existed in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to recognize the distinction between good and evil and choose to be one or the other (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people exist in the past or present, personal morality and personal immorality will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) is that person's morality (personal morality) (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent them from being good or being evil as they will in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent their recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (abstract morality) exists in all past, present and future of this universe whether people (and their personal morality) exist or not (conclusion)
​
-
An abstract thing is not bound in time or to conditions* (premise)
-
People can exist at some point in time (premise)
-
Good and evil can exist because people can exist (premise)
-
Personal morality can exist because good and evil can exist (premise)
-
Abstract morality exists because personal morality can exist (premise)
-
Therefore, abstract morality exists across all time (and arguably even beyond) (conclusion)
In a nutshell, the abstract thing of (even potential) entities distinguishing and choosing cooperation over hostility and vice versa** exists across all time (and arguably even beyond). That abstract thing is what I personally refer to as morality and the reason I so confidently claim morality exists outside the mind.
People prefer to fumble around believing that morality is "how you should behave and how you should not behave" or something to do with winning Zeus's or Odin's approval or whatever, that ain't none a' my beeezwax.
-
* E.g. the abstract things distance, danger, clue, pattern and choice existed before there were any non-abstract things to have distance to one another, be in danger, have patterns, be investigative or make choices just as they will still exist after those non-abstract things cease to exist. Since they will still exist even if time and space cease and (potentially) non-abstract things might exist again to "embody" them.
In other words, the abstract thing lifeform exists independent of this universe or any other, it exists independent of all that just by not being a myth, just by not being Zeus throwing lightning bolts since he is not an abstract thing but a fiction, a broken mirror magically causing seven years bad luck is not an abstract thing but a fiction and "should" is not an an abstract thing but a fiction.
Which I already tried to explain in my second comment to you:
"The same way it always exists; Rape would be immoral because it would be evil because it would be malevolent. That there is no longer anyone in existence to be malevolent or benevolent does not erase that from reality. Nor did organic life bring it into reality, it was always there.
Kind of like... hmm... "Organic life would grow because organic life would have genetics." Organic life actually existing is irrelevant."
** To which I'm sure some would draw parallells to game theory.
TrueBeluga t1_j4mpczz wrote
Ok, I'll just point out my issues with the premises and the conclusions you provided:
>Benevolently protecting others is good (opposite of evil) (premise)
Leap of logic. You need to prove that "benevolence is good" or, "benevolently protecting others is good". Benevolence's definition does not equal good's definition, and so to prove that benevolent action is good (in this case, benevolent protection), you need to provide other premises to prove that. Because you are implementing a logic chain (as is common in arguments), the fact that this premise is logically unsound means that your entire argument (after this premise) is unsound. So, if you want to correct your argument, you need to fix this issue first, but even though this damns your argument already I will provide some more criticisms below.
>Malevolently harming of others is evil (premise)
Same issue with above. This is unsupported. Just because harming exists, and malevolence exists, does not mean malevolent harm is evil. This needs to be proven with further evidence, reasons, or premises or else it also causes your argument to be unsound and illogical.
>A person can recognize good (premise)
A person can recognize evil (premise)
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
I do not accept these premises. Different cultures all around the world recognize the existence of evil and good. However, what they call evil, and what they call good, is drastically different. In many cases, say some ancient pagan cultures (lets just say the Asatru norse, in this case) would say that malevolent harm can be good (and not evil) if its done in the service of a God, or in an act of revenge. Even Christian witch hunts, which are malevolent cause of harm, would not be recognized as evil, and this witch hunts have continued in Africa into modern times. If we are using your definitions of good and evil, then it is actually completely incorrect to say that people can recognize good and evil. Some can, but if you were to pick a random person in history or present, it would be quite likely that they couldn't "recognize good/evil" in many, many cases. Thus, these premises are false.
>Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
Not necessarily. The science is still evolving, but if heat death were to happen ( a real possibility), then at some point nothing would be able to live as entropy would have reached a maximal state of continuous and equal energy levels throughout the entire universe and thus reactions (chemical, physical, biological) could not occur. You have to add the assumption: "assuming heat death, or any other end-of-universe scenario will not occur, and that the universe will remain persistent and hospital for some kind of life for all time", which an assumption which is ungrounded in current science and thus I do not accept.
Each one of these criticisms of your argument are, so to speak, damning. That means that if you want your argument to be logical or sound, you must address and fix each one.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4nqszi wrote
>"Leap of logic."
No, it seems you're confusing logic with what people have written in dictionaries. To which I keep saying this: Something used to be written in dictionaries about the Sun and the stars was "They orbit the Earth."
>"You need to prove"
Objection. I never "need" to do anything, I could have died in the womb or all organic life could have died out before there were even dinosaurs. "Needing/need/necessity" is a myth.
>"that "benevolence is good" or, "benevolently protecting others is good". Benevolence's definition does not equal good's definition, and so to prove that benevolent action is good (in this case, benevolent protection), you need to provide other premises to prove that. Because you are implementing a logic chain (as is common in arguments), the fact that this premise is logically unsound means that your entire argument (after this premise) is unsound. So, if you want to correct your argument, you need to fix this issue first, but even though this damns your argument already I will provide some more criticisms below."
All of this is nothing I didn't already know. Except the last part about fixing this issue, I do not at this point recognize that there is an issue to fix.
Logically prove to me (with numbers, premises and conclusions) that (just pulling an example out of a hat here) a firefighter choosing to sacrifice their life to save a complete stranger from a burning building is not being good (i.e. opposite of being evil).
Or, if you prefer, logically prove to me that a man ("legally" sane i.e. not hallucinating that he's saving the world from alien invasion through this) chaining a complete stranger up in a building he's just lit on fire so the stranger will burn to death is not being evil.
Because if you can't do either, then what does my "logical leap" (as you call it, incorrectly if you ask me) conflict with? Other people's inconclusive philosophical theories? Other people's unproven "personal definition" of what good and evil are, i.e. the Pope has one based on religious dogma?
Or perhaps you already have the proof as perhaps you have a dictionary that can reveal unto us the "Definitive Definition Of What Good And Evil Are" like Deep Thought was asked to reveal The Ultimate Answer and The Ultimate Question in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy?
>"Same issue with above. This is unsupported. Just because harming exists, and malevolence exists, does not mean malevolent harm is evil. This needs to be proven with further evidence, reasons, or premises or else it also causes your argument to be unsound and illogical."
Same issue as above. I do not at this point recognize that it is unsupported.
If I could just stomp babies to death in front of their weeping mothers because I have a gun and they don't and no one on the planet called this "evil"... because "Well, you know, our academics have never figured out what this thing that the word evil would stand for would actually be. In ancient Greece some scholars argued that it refers to whatever Zeus and the pantheon frowned upon while others argued that Zeus and the pantheon would frown upon it because it would be a flaw in an otherwise perfect universe. And some argue that it refers to something devoid of moral value as blablabla.", well... that is absurd.
That is the way I understand this (and I may be wrong here), that if you can't logically prove the "stranger in a burning building" thing to be morally neutral then the above is exactly what you're doing, you're holding up philosophy papers and dictionary excerpts written by others and proclaiming that no one simply recognized a basic 'lack of neutrality' and named it "good and evil", no, there "must" be this grand all-encompassing solution so that discovering it will ALSO make all the philosophical papers and dictionaries stop conflicting on the subject. Again, the "Definitive Definition Of What Good And Evil Are"... like Deep Thought was asked to reveal The Ultimate Answer and The Ultimate Question.
That would seem to me philosophers have their concepts of "good and evil" on such a tall pedestal that philosophy itself is literally parody of seeking the truth.
>"I do not accept these premises. Different cultures all around the world recognize the existence of evil and good."
Cultures are irrelevant.
>"However, what they call evil, and what they call good, is drastically different."
Which is one of the larger parts of how cultures are irrelevant. I don't care what the Pope calls good or evil anymore than what some stoned medicine man in the deepest part of anywhere calls good or evil since it's irrelevant. Say they both say homosexuality is evil, I don't give a flying *** since homosexuality is not malevolent causing of harm hence I don't consider gays and lesbians evil or immoral. A rapist or pedophile, on the other hand... yeah, I don't care what the Pope or the medicine man or any human of any culture you can bring to the table has to say about that either.
>"In many cases, say some ancient pagan cultures (lets just say the Asatru norse, in this case) would say that malevolent harm can be good (and not evil) if its done in the service of a God, or in an act of revenge."
Exactly, which is how they're wrong. That is not how morality works. Being in the service of a fictional "deity" or revenge is not benevolent protection of others hence it would not (even partially) cancel out the malevolent harm.
>"Even Christian witch hunts, which are malevolent cause of harm, would not be recognized as evil, and this witch hunts have continued in Africa into modern times. If we are using your definitions of good and evil, then it is actually completely incorrect to say that people can recognize good and evil."
You're completely misreading (or intentionally twisting) the point: Yes, they could recognize that burning a person alive at the stake would normally be evil, they just didn't believe it was in this case since they believed God made it not be evil in this case. If the "witches" were doing the burning of the Christians, you think the neighboring Christians would shrug and go "Oh well, God's will be done. Hope they don't come for me tomorrow. Time to milk the cows."? I do findeth that unlikely.
>"Not necessarily."
You're using that word again. Also, you're misunderstanding the point. Wind the clock back to before we exist and we will exist in the future. Since I said "in the past or present". Which does not include "in our future" (heat death etc).
TrueBeluga t1_j4qcrkt wrote
Let me attempt to explain something.
Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning. I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning). For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other.
I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind. However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English. That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning.
I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory. However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition. Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments. You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic.
To attempt to drive this point home, let me examine this quote by you:
>Something used to be written in dictionaries about the Sun and the stars was "They orbit the Earth."
This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist. Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world.
I'm not going to continue to argue this further, because sadly I have a lot of university work to complete, but good talking to you.
​
Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth", but not if they were to say, "the sun orbits the earth" if the sun were defined as "the glowing sphere which orbits the earth" as these are definitionally and logically consistent statements. If they defined the sun as, "the glowing sphere in the sky" but said nothing about its orbit, then in this case it would be incorrect to say "the sun orbits the earth" as this is no longer definitionally consistent and also refers to an object that can be said to exist. I know this is sort of dense philosophy of language, but sadly I cannot explain a few hundred years of modern philosophy in a reddit thread lol.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4rmb0m wrote
>"Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning."
Everything has meaning.
>"I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning)."
Language is the communication of concepts e.g. a deer alerting its kin to danger with its tail communicating the concept of danger to its kin and they all flee.
Dictionaries are just a tool we humans use to attempt to keep track of the most common agreed upon meanings because we communicate a lot. What's that old black-and-white movie where the professor spent like a decade slaving away on the biggest encyclopedia yet then is utterly thrown by modern slang ("Corny?"), realizes the book would be half obsolete and basically employs a woman to help him and sparks fly? Eh, whatever.
>"For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other."
I understand what you're saying but all of this was known to me. To use your phrasing, you have no reason to tell me that when a number of people say the word morality some or all of them might mean different things by it.
>"I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind."
ALL concepts are non-imaginary and exist irrespective of the mind. The concept of plastic toothbrush cannot be destroyed once it exists. You can destroy the entire universe, even time and space on top of that, and the concept of plastic toothbrush would just continue to exist as it has since it began to exist, in the conceptual realm.
I was not talking about a concept existing, I was talking about the actual nature of morality. I.e. morality existing in that if humans did not evolve on Earth but instead a Martian people evolved on Mars then rape would be immoral there too for the exact same reasons as they are on Earth provided that rape would involve malevolence and harm (as those are the reasons).
>"However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English."
Sure, if you say so. But English dictates how the universe works? Dictates the true nature of morality? I think not.
>"That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning."
No. Language is the communication of concepts and meaning is... eh, you'll just quote "the official definitions from books that are official because they are in books" at me.
Also, I never argued that morality was benevolence and malevolence, that is over-simplying my argument bordering on strawman argument.
>"I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory."
My "concept" or "definition" (which is what you call it while I would hesitate to label it either of those things) of it does NOT concern "moral right" and "moral wrong", since (as I've said many times now) those are myths, except in the sense that it deliberately distances itself from them.
What I'm "professing" is how I have personally concluded the true nature of morality to be. If you want to call that my "theory of morality", fine, but it is not an all-new concept that whole-sale replaces anything, in a sense it just shaves off the myths, like "People should be moral." and "People should be immoral." having any connection with reality.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4rmhcw wrote
>"However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition."
It is not intended to "usurp" its definition. The word "gods" (in any language, really) did not have its hard drive of meanings written by Judeo-Christian etc. religions coming in with monotheism and omnipotence and existing outside of time etc. It didn't instantly erase Ragnarok or Zeus and Cronus slaying Ouranos and then getting slain by his sons.
>"Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments."
I have not argued otherwise. I obviously am already aware that the word 'morality' means different things to different people and that it is never tied to logical arguments like this since if either of those we would not be having this conversation, would we? We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation since it would be an impossibility for us since what you've just described would literally prevent us from having it, yes?
>"You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic."
I am not arguing that the meanings of words "have to" follow logic or anything else. And I do not mean that just because "imperatives" are a myth.
>"This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist."
Which is exactly the reason why you have not seen me say "The definition for morality in your dictionaries is wrong!" Instead what you have seen me say is (in a nutshell) "All our many lofty and conflicting ideas about morality being about right and wrong and should and moral values etc. are mistaken. Morality is, at its core at least, simpler than you might think."
>"Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world."
Actually you're wrong there. Google "Elasmotherium sibericum" for the reason I nowadays use "pegasus" instead of "unicorn" in my argument about myth/fiction. Except for when I do use it but specify "magical unicorn" or, if I'm in the mood, "time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings". :-)
>"Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth","
That is exactly what they did. They pointed at the sky and said "That glowing object and that pale object and those tiny dots of light are the Sun, the Moon and the stars and they all orbit the Earth." Case closed, you have no case. Their definition was factually wrong. Nice tr... actually, no, terrible try.
I understand your preference that the definition "Zeus is king of the gods and rules from Mount Olympus and throws all the lightning on Earth." be untouchable by logic but reality is that the mountain in question exists and Zeus ain't there and as we learned more about lightning it seemed more and more far-fetched that he was involved so eventually we added "Oh yeah, Zeus is also a myth."
That is what would happen to all those old conflicting ideas about the nature of morality, they would be seen for what they truly are, factually incorrect since they involved myths. Hypotheses and musings really.
Good talking to you too.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4nuzla wrote
I got bored...
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally harm eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional harming of others exists (conclusion)
​
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally protect eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional protection of others exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional protection of others exists (premise)
-
Benevolence (behaviour exhibiting a kind/charitable/altruistic attitude, good will, wishing others well) exists (premise)
-
Benevolently protecting others is heroism (premise)
-
Therefore, heroism exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional harming of others exists (premise)
-
Malevolence (behaviour exhibiting a hostile/spiteful attitude, ill will, wishing ill on others) exists (premise)
-
Malevolently harming of others is villainy (premise)
-
Therefore, villainy exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize heroism (premise)
-
A person can recognize villainy (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) is that person's morality (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (personal morality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize heroism (premise)
-
A person can recognize villainy (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be villainous (or even try to) is that person's immorality (premise)
-
Therefore, immorality (personal immorality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to harm eachother in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, benevolence and malevolence will exist in the future (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people existed in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy and choose to be one or the other (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people exist in the past or present, personal morality and personal immorality will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) is that person's morality (personal morality) (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent them from being heroic or being villainous as they will in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent their recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (abstract morality) exists in all past, present and future of this universe whether people (and their personal morality) exist or not (conclusion)
​
-
An abstract thing is not bound in time or to conditions* (premise)
-
People can exist at some point in time (premise)
-
Heroism and villainy can exist because people can exist (premise)
-
Personal morality can exist because heroism and villany can exist (premise)
-
Abstract morality exists because personal morality can exist (premise)
-
Therefore, abstract morality exists across all time (and arguably even beyond) (conclusion)
[deleted] t1_j46gerr wrote
[deleted]
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46l5wv wrote
>"Oh, really, that so?"
Yes, that so.
>"Nothing is ever needed if"
No, no "if", period.
>"all you can think about is the existential crisis in your head and the point of existing. If you simply want to live life in itself and enjoy it to its fullest. As Buddha has said, and this is verbatim, life is simply too short to worry about what can't be answered."
I see no relevance to that quote since I just answered it. We navigate better with the truth. (Partly since the truth will outlast life, the stars, even time and space.)
EDIT: And there is no "the point of existing" so I have no idea for what reason you bring that in.
>"So in short, yes, stuff is needed to exist and live."
That is a lie, partly because organisms do not "need" to live. Humans are just too much of egomaniacs to accept that and grow from it.
>"Rules exist so we can."
Another lie.
>"In this world, there have always been rules and laws"
No. 3.4 million years of Stone Age, 6,000 years of post-Stone Age and not a single "rule" or "law" has ever existed outside the imagination. Same with chess, "crime' and "murder". Although... I guess chess arguably exists as an abstract thing.
>"We use them to navigate our existence and to be able to complete certain tasks and etc. The rules of chess don't float around the table, but Hikaru surely can't be a grandmaster if he doesn't know the rules, can he?"
Calvin and Hobbes can be "grandmasters" of their game of "make up rules as you go". The title means you've learned to play the game well but playing chess IS an entirely imaginary activity, two people can even do it simply through conversation. You and your best friend can make up a dance, i.e. "create the rules" of it, and become masters at it but you're performing an imaginary activity, the "rules" of your new dance never magically leaves the imagination, only the dance (arguably) becomes an abstract non-imaginary thing.
>"It could have ended" but sadly, it has not. I do not care about the fact you believe life on earth doesn't revolve around humans and life. If you have such a depressing selfless belief in your life, so be it."
So not being an egomaniac invariably is a depressing existence? I.e. if the universe does not revolve around you OH WOE IS YOU, WHAT A DEPRESSING EXISTENCE, HOWEVER CAN YOU GO ON?!
(Sorry if that is too agressive, I'm just trying to illustrate my stance about egotism.)
>"You are free to believe life is pointless and humanity is not the center, but what is life's point then?"
It doesn't have one, nothing does. "Purpose" is a myth. (Proof below.)
>"I am not interested in leading a longer discussion than needed, to be quite frank!"
Nice one but reality remains; neither of us ever "need" to have any conversations in our lifetimes, our parents could have had other offspring or we could have died a long time ago or life on Earth could have gone extinct before conversation was even feasible, hence no conversation ever "needs" to be any particular length.
--Proof of "purpose" being a myth--
I can use a hammer as a doorstop, as a paperweight, to scratch that hard to reach spot on my back, to smash a window to get out of a burning car or as a sex toy. I can use a dirty rock from a nearby ditch to slam a nail into a wall. That is the nature of utility.
One brother can go into the woods to cut down a tree, lug it home, work for weeks to make a nice-looking comfortable wooden chair intending to sit in it by the fireplace reading Shakespeare. As he's finished he goes back out into the woods to cut some wood for the fire. His brother comes in, takes the nice-looking comfortable-looking wooden chair no one's ever sat in, chops it up and makes a fire in the fireplace.
"Purpose" is a myth, it exists nowhere but in our imagination. It doesn't exist in hammers, rocks, trees, wood, chairs, fireplaces, fire, molecules, atoms or organic life.
[deleted] t1_j46refo wrote
[deleted]
Funoichi t1_j47m3gs wrote
Read everything you said lol. Oh right, you said nothing, made no points, and made no attempt to engage what the other person was saying.
[deleted] t1_j47mfml wrote
[deleted]
Funoichi t1_j47n62n wrote
You simply reply nuh uh, to the points that there is no such thing as need, that there’s no such thing as an imperative, that there’s no such thing as purpose, etc that the other user wrote.
I’m not sure I put all statements they said, feel free to go back and read them again.
I ask that you engage with this topic you’ve chosen to respond to, and to do so with some relevance.
I understand the topic is of some distaste to you, but a thing’s correctness and our enjoyment of its implications are two different things.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46sx00 wrote
Do you honestly think that's intelligent, I point out it's egotistical to believe we "need" to live (when record level of species are going extinct as we speak, even) and you tell me to go kill myself?
Also, where did you get the idea that I "believe in nothingness"? If you mean nihilism, nihilism is stupid.
Believing in "the unimportantness of the human existence" is right for a very simple reason: "Importance" is a myth. We are no more "important" than the T-Rex or the dodo or some genesplicing-technologically created animal in the future.
EDIT: Also, living a happy life is irrelevant to the conversation in general and specifically it's irrelevant to "finding a point in it", you're confusing the myth of "purpose' with sense of contentment or sense of accomplishment etc.
[deleted] t1_j46grif wrote
[deleted]
Hassan_99 t1_j46lhvi wrote
What a meaningful and spiritual life you must have geez.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46rocu wrote
"Must" is a myth i.e. "imperatives" exist only in our imagination. That said, my life is just as meaningful as yours since meaning is omnipresent. I don't know what your idea of spirituality is so I won't go into it.
ACuteMonkeysUncle t1_j46f6hc wrote
This seems to derive from the deontological-consequentialist circle. Rules are considered to be good if they give good results, and results are considered to good if they align with a good rule.
Strong_Wheel t1_j46jbcj wrote
Interesting. I suspect everyone has different moral principles unless they claim to strictly follow a religion. Also one’s principles change with time.
thismightbsatire t1_j47hodj wrote
Philosophy is about understanding how to think, not what to think. And, it requires one to accept that knowledge and moral absolutism, without experience, hinders ones ability to decern true wisdom from a long life of learned leasons. Adhering to practical moral principles will help navigate ones life in a positive direction. But, life like learning isn't linear, and weathering through the inevitable turbulent times that everyone faces, alone, throughout life with a fixed moral compass will drown even the most intelligent minds.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j48e2e8 wrote
I disagree with the terms "require" and "must" (since those are myth) but other than that I agree fully.
thismightbsatire t1_j48mpm9 wrote
I think I can see your position. Will you check my understanding and let me know if we're on the same page. "Must" and "require" presupposes a first principle position, which assumes agreement, right?
Thanks for your feedback.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j48u473 wrote
>"Must" and "require" presupposes a first principle position, which assumes agreement, right?
It's simpler than that. "Must" (i.e. "imperatives") and "require" (i.e. "necessity" or "need") affect nothing directly outside the imagination hence they are imaginary things.
​
In practice: If I am out in the desert I can believe I "require" water or "must" find water (based on the possibility of me dying soon without ingesting water) but reality is simply that I may soon die of thirst without having found water, the universe doesn't care.
thismightbsatire t1_j48xnrl wrote
I agree. Factive predicts are interpretive.
[deleted] t1_j46g0i2 wrote
[deleted]
Ill_Sound621 t1_j46iyth wrote
It's not. It's a discussion of every phylosophy ever taught.
ohburger t1_j46vrgr wrote
I see rules the same way as I view fences. Some keep you from going places that you shouldn’t and others are there to protect you from things that may cause you harm.
Aksaradut t1_j47w87z wrote
Some fences are misplaced, it might be better to break through or walk around them.
ohburger t1_j47wy3j wrote
All I would say to that is; proceed with caution before tearing down any boundaries. Sometimes they’re there for reasons we don’t completely understand but are necessary all the same.
mcjohnson415 t1_j495nh1 wrote
Reading philosophy for the last fifty years has brought me back to my childhood education. Philosophers make complicated explanations demonstrating the superiority of their education and their intellect but really they just say what the nuns taught us. “Be humble, we really don’t ‘know’ anything, be nice to each other when you can.”
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j49w3et wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
tree-molester t1_j46qmg0 wrote
Single principle only needed: ‘Try not to be a dick.’
Try is the key here.
slumdog7 t1_j47oph2 wrote
Use a hammer 🔨
Wonderful_Parasite t1_j47qrja wrote
Externally agree with this, limiting life into set of rules or even any concept that humans can grasp is out of the question since life, light and love is a combination of many things. As humans we do not fully understand 100% of any thing but our own experience in this reality and even than we normally don’t see or understand fully 100% either .
Opinion: Researching different point of views, creating your own moral and choosing which makes more sense to you and your life should be EVERYONE yearly ritual . ( even many good ones already been said and taught by “enlightened” people before, there’s still many being “uncovered” again lately.) don’t experience, BE it.
[deleted] t1_j4800cf wrote
[deleted]
shirk-work t1_j48hdet wrote
The ultimate goal is that no mind suffers or causes another to suffer if reasonably avoidable. The pathway there is generally through the attempt and practice or unconditional love, hope and forgiveness.
[deleted] t1_j48kgl3 wrote
[deleted]
Chode36 t1_j48yd1y wrote
That can be extremely difficult in todays social climate, The mental aspect that is.
cesiumatom t1_j48lo3s wrote
The saying "rules were made to be broken" could shed some additional insight on the topic. Rules and moral principles are a manifestation of language, and language changes over time and space. So do rules, whether legal or theological (though the latter may be more subtle). Rules can be thought of as a manifestation of the times, or at least, that's the context in which they would be most useful and relavent. Rules that do not adapt to the times and contexts quickly become poor policy, leading to degeneration, exploitation, and chaos. Having systems in place to verify the validity of rules across time and space and update them as is necessary to align to particular goals makes for productive regulation that avoids pushing towards the extremes or breaking the system that is in place. In essence, navigating life better is a process that cannot be codified and set indefinitely. The process must evolve with the new and verified data. "Cleaning your room" is a good starting point if you don't know where to start, but it's never going to be enough as you evolve as a human being, and the rules you choose to live by can help pave a navigable path before you in a space with combinatorially explosive possibilities.
rehoboam t1_j48spyv wrote
What’s meant by this? Or rather, why is this being said in this context? “Moreover, he argues that virtue ethics is not compatible with rule making; “
undivided-assUmption t1_j4992c6 wrote
Moral principles are subjective in nature. A right decision today can easily be interpreted as the wrong one tomorrow. One should learn to think divergently and rely on logic and reason to navigate life better. I'm curious: Who will be dictating what moral principles we should commit to? When will our navigator be arriving to show all of "us" how to navigate life better? Using morality to guide an individual through life isn't even emotionally intelligent. Seriously!
TheIncredibleMrFish t1_j4asyhf wrote
Having pre-determined responses/judgements for some things, helps you with being consistent and removes the mental load of having to make a decision.
transdimensionalmeme t1_j4cko59 wrote
I would add “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4fjtnl wrote
Quoted from mid-conversation in another thread:
>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm)." --TrueBeluga
>
>But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing. You can fail to cause harm while you were being malevolent. In fact some use the word malevolence for just the desire or inclination to do harm.
>
>I am arguing morality is about good and evil. Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm and doing good would be its opposite, benevolence + preventing/undoing (or actively trying to prevent/undo) harm. Being immoral would be doing evil without a certain amount of doing good as "extenuating circumstances" and vice versa (i.e. a moral person is a person who tries to do as little evil as possible and if they cannot avoid doing evil they try to do good at the same time).
>
>That you're saying "Well, that's only true if you define the word morality that way!" seems like semantics to me. I'm arguing that this was true before organic life came along and language even existed.
>
>I can use made up words: Instead of morality we have rockapootity, instead of good and evil I have nicootan and baroom. It would still be the same thing: If lifeforms ever exist in this lifeless universe then a rockapootital person would be a person who tries to do as little baroom as possible and if they cannot avoid doing baroom they try to do nicootan at the same time. A society of lifeforms of exclusively doing baroom would quickly go under, a society of lifeforms of exclusively nicootan would thrive so a society trying to be the latter would organize standards to promote nicatoon and frown on baroom. The most rockapootital person in that society may be following those standards or deviating from them depending on how good those standards were made since those standards could be very poorly made.
>
>EDIT: If the last part is unclear the most rockapootital person can say "These standards suck, they result in this baroom and this baroom." and the society can go "Oh, that person's right. We thought this was how to be the most rockapootital people we could be but clearly it's time to revise. You have done your society a very nicootan service."
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fmzku wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j46olq9 wrote
[deleted]
gooner_by_heart t1_j46cnm3 wrote
The moral principles are needed for our own inner peace.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46djpb wrote
False, nothing is ever "needed" since "need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than the drowned corpse "needs" to avoid becoming a drowning man... or becoming a time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings.
ibnQoheleth t1_j47458i wrote
You've voiced this view a few times on this post, what are you trying to achieve here? I'm not sure I understand what position you're trying to put forward, or if you're simply trying to provoke.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j475sy8 wrote
(sigh) What difference does it make what "my position" is or if if I'm "trying to put it forward"? The question is is what I'm saying logical and can you logically argue what I'm saying with me, yes?
I'm trying to provoke THOUGHT. What is wrong with you humans?
EDIT: In other words: Philosophy used to be about questioning things, is it the opposite here on reddit?
[deleted] t1_j478j1n wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4eyvvf wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j47bh71 wrote
[removed]
gooner_by_heart t1_j46drms wrote
You're saying we are doomed anyway?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46evd4 wrote
Not at all, it has nothing to do with being doomed. It's a simple question of what's real and what's myth. Horse and pegasus. That also helps us navigate life better; the truth, that is.
gooner_by_heart t1_j46g3o1 wrote
Maybe need by itself is a myth. But if you want to do something, you need to do something. The drowning man needs to try and save himself if he wants to live.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46gwg6 wrote
No, there is no "if" that can make "necessity/need/needing" non-myth. My desire to make apple pie does not magically create the "necessity" of apples existing or the "necessity" of me finding any apples (whether they exist or, say, somehow ceased to exist). "Necessity" exists only in the imagination.
EDIT: Obviously, the same goes for if I'm dying of cancer within a month and desire a cure or dying of thirst in the middle of the Sahara and desire Mountain Dew.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46fwd4 wrote
I would not disagree with moral principles being essential for our inner peace i.e. the stance "We cannot have inner peace without moral principles" as I see no way to disprove it... without some grand global social experimentation. :-)
upallnightynight t1_j49aflp wrote
Life doesn't need to be reduced to a rulebook. It can be summed up in one sentence.
"Let your conscience be your guide."
bronzelifematter t1_j49ydv7 wrote
There's no rules. Do whatever you want. People have succeed doing the complete opposite of what other successful people do and vice versa. It's all random sh*t.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4fz0dz wrote
That there are no "rules" (which I agree with) doesn't mean anything is "random". What is "random" and "chaos" except our inability to know how the thrown dice will land because we don't have a magical outside perspective (to see the Big Bang leading into our parents meeting leading into what whe had for breakfast yesterday leading into what we'll have for breakfast tomorrow leading into how we die of a heart attack in 29 years, two months, five days, eleven hours and twenty-six minutes)?
bronzelifematter t1_j4jdp0w wrote
You could be living a healthy life style, eating balanced diet, exercise everyday, and one day you are walking down the road, maybe you are 35 years old with 2 little kids, a boy and a girl walking by yourside, and some drunk teen who have been out partying all night swerve his new sports car his daddy bought him into you and your family killing all of you, ending your bloodline forever despite all the effort you have made to built your life into a perfect one.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4komfo wrote
There's quite a few problems with that: "Perfection" and "imperfection" are two sides of the same myth. Also (just for context) I am a 42 year old virgin with no interest in bloodline or raising a family of my own, in other words your clear attraction to it is not universal. And (this is just technical nitpicking) you forgot to add that I'm a woman or there'd be no woman carrying my third child or that I had not "put some swimmers on ice" in one way or other in order for your "ending your bloodline forever" to be true.
But to answer you: Yes, if that were the case that would be how this universe plays out, just like how every horrible detail of WWI and WWII played out. In short, this is the universe that begin with a particular Big Bang (or however it all began) and everything leading up to the drunk teen swerving and everything after it are the consequences. My life and your life (however they will play out) are not random, the future is the future of that Big Bang. We cannot know the future (kind of like Romeo and Juliet cannot rewrite the pages in order to know in the first act that they die in the third act) but nothing in the future is random just like nothing in the past is. There's no Choose-Your-Adventure to Romeo and Juliet.
crisstoff89 t1_j468ntu wrote
Having 4 pillars and top isnt really a house but it does protect you from the rain