back to the beginning: morality

[promethean75]

You did not. You failed to establish your quantifier transformation which resulted in biconditional disjunction and irreflexivity. Therefore there was no proof of the sequent.

I told you about this, man, and you're still doing it.

[Ecmandu]

You did not. You failed to establish your quantifier transformation which resulted in biconditional disjunction and irreflexivity. Therefore there was no proof of the sequent.

I told you about this, and you're still doing it, man.

Is that what someone should say to you when they hit your foot with a hammer??

[Ecmandu]

Read the post above as well...

Iambiguous could have been polite enough to post this, wow, he really is scared:

viewtopic.php?f=6&p=2735447#p2735447

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
"Is Morality Objective?"
From Philosophy Now magazine
Graham Dunstan Martin

The common belief is that there are two kinds of knowledge: subjective and objective. The latter is held to be more certain than the former, and is usually contrasted with it. However, the distinction is ultimately untenable. Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge. This is because of the absolute privacy of conscious experience, which ensures that there can be no composite or collective view of reality. So every so-called ‘objective fact’ is derivative – that is, it is derived from the private observations of individuals insofar as they seem to agree with each other.

Ever and always the ambiguity embedded in the part where the subjective "I" ends and the objective world begins. Sometimes the arguments are wholly technical, making little or no contact with the world of actual human interactions. Other times the arguments are wholly existential, making little or no contact with the tools of philosophy.

What I figure is that in regard to actual conflicting goods there has yet to be an argument made that seamlessly combines both approaches such that one or another deontological assessment allows us, both technically and for all practical purposes, to know how all rational men and women are obligated to behave.

But, further, only in bringing both approaches down to earth and examining human behaviors revolving around a specific context reflecting value judgments at odds, will the arguments become more comprehensive, more substantial.

The process of arriving at a moral truth is in principle exactly the same as that: by inquiry and agreement among autonomous individuals. The status of a value would thus be no less (and no more) ‘objective’ than that of a ‘fact’.

But: How on earth is this to be understood more comprehensively, more substantially? "In principle", sure, lots and lots of things can be agreed upon. But what particular inquiry and agreement are we talking about?

"In principle" any actual community can agree that abortion is murder or that immigration must be stopped or that government ought not to regulate gun ownership.

And if those in power in that community can sustain what is agreed upon "in principle", sure, call that objective morality.

But what if conditions and events change calling into question this principle? What if folks from other communities that champion conflicting principles make contact?

Moreover, no ‘objective facts’ can be arrived at unless certain values are observed. These values are arrived at in the same way as we arrive at facts: namely by mutual agreement. They include (1) Respect for reason and truth, (2) Recognition of knowledge, (3) Respect for each other’s freedom and autonomy, (4) Respect for each other’s conscious experience, and (5) Frankness, even where this involves admitting one’s own mistakes. It will be seen that the Golden Rule is implicit here. We require therefore moral values when seeking out facts – values are at the root of so-called ‘facts’. And we may assert that both facts and values are derived from individual human experience, and so are as ‘objective’, or not, as each other.

What is this if not a classic example of the "general description" that allows for the existence of objective morality "in principle"?

Bring these 5 points down to earth and explore them in regard to an actual context in the modern world, and see how long this "general description" of morality "in principle" can be sustained.

[surreptitious75]

Objective facts do not demonstrate objective morality because this is a non sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy
Facts are not necessarily objectively true but only taken to be true at the time in the absence of any contradiction
Also facts are empirical whereas morality is abstract so any comparison is a false equivalence and therefore invalid

[iambiguous]

Objective facts do not demonstrate objective morality because this is a non sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy
Facts are not necessarily objectively true but only taken to be true at the time in the absence of any contradiction
Also facts are empirical whereas morality is abstract so any comparison is a false equivalence and therefore invalid

I can only react to this by pointing out the obvious: it does not reference any particular facts relating to any particular context in which a discussion of morality might be expected.

There are objective facts that rational people can find agreement regarding with respect to gun ownership in America.

Now, given the facts that are able to be accumulated, what can in fact be concluded in turn regarding the moral obligation of the American government [federal state local] insofar as regulating gun ownership amongst its citizens?

How is your assessment above applicable here?

Or to a context of your own choosing.

[Ecmandu]

Objective facts do not demonstrate objective morality because this is a non sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy
Facts are not necessarily objectively true but only taken to be true at the time in the absence of any contradiction
Also facts are empirical whereas morality is abstract so any comparison is a false equivalence and therefore invalid

I can only react to this by pointing out the obvious: it does not reference any particular facts relating to any particular context in which a discussion of morality might be expected.

There are objective facts that rational people can find agreement regarding with respect to gun ownership in America.

Now, given the facts that are able to be accumulated, what can in fact be concluded in turn regarding the moral obligation of the American government [federal state local] insofar as regulating gun ownership amongst its citizens?

How is your assessment above applicable here?

Or to a context of your own choosing.

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe, I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent. I am also not using English incorrectly to state that the stubbing my toe is evil, I can call mere objects evil without even anthropomorphising.

I gave you a context iambiguous, a very down to earth one in fact:

Existence is the context.

Consent is the self evident checking in.

The context of existence is violating (in one way or another) every beings consent.

Thus, given that very real world, down to earth analysis, we can objectively say that existence is some pretty evil shit. All of us know that nobodies toe ever had to be stubbed in existence, yet millions are. Existence violates consent.

[promethean75]

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe, I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent. I am also not using English incorrectly to state that the stubbing my toe is evil

what a curious use of language. is it even possible to give one's consent to a concrete sidewalk? would it be okay for the sidewalk to stub your toe only after you've given it permission? it makes no sense to speak of 'against consent' unless we can also speak of 'with consent', but to give consent requires that the thing being given the consent can understand the permission it has been granted, and act accordingly. but alas, the sidewalk can know nothing of your desire to avoid stubbing your toe against it, and cannot therefore be accountable for violating your consent.

now if you'd rather generalize your statement to mean 'life sucks because there is pain', that would be more acceptable... or at least more sensible.

[Ecmandu]

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe, I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent. I am also not using English incorrectly to state that the stubbing my toe is evil

what a curious use language. is it even possible to give one's consent to a concrete sidewalk? would it be okay for the sidewalk to stub your toe only after you've given it permission? it makes no sense to speak of 'against consent' unless we can also speak of 'with consent', but to give consent requires that the thing being given the consent can understand the permission it has been granted, and act accordingly. but alas, the sidewalk can know nothing of your desire to avoid stubbing your toe against it, and cannot therefore be accountable for violating your consent.

now if you'd rather generalize your statement to mean 'life sucks because there is pain', that would be more acceptable... or at least more sensible.

No! It's YOUR consent, not the sidewalks consent.

[promethean75]

again: how could you give consent to a sidewalk?

analogously, if i do not indicate that a piece of property is mine, and someone takes it, has that person stolen it? they've taken it, but have they 'stolen' it? to consciously perform an act of theft, one must know the property belongs to someone.

to consciously perform an act of consent violation, the sidewalk needs to know in advance that you don't want to stub your toe. did you tell him before you started walking on him?

and btw, i'm pretty sure he didn't appreciate you walking all over him like that.

[Ecmandu]

again: how could you give consent to a sidewalk?

analogously, if i do not indicate that a piece of property is mine, and someone takes it, has that person stolen it? they've taken it, but have they 'stolen' it? to consciously perform an act of theft, one must know the property belongs to someone.

to consciously perform an act of consent violation, the sidewalk needs to know in advance that you don't want to stub your toe. did you tell him before you started walking on him?

and btw, i'm pretty sure he didn't appreciate you walking all over him like that.

Bad straw man ... some straw mans are good.

You either agree or disagree with what's happening to you, irrespective of the sentience or lack thereof, of what's causing or not causing grief.

You keep trying to assign agency to the external, when consent is only judged internally.

So, you know the whole "define your terms and I'll debate with you?"

I'm not using consent in a peculiar way when I state that the consent violator need not be sentient, however, you accused me of that, and it's a bad straw man.

[promethean75]

okay you got me. it's just so idiosyncratically human to say a sidewalk violated your consent, ya know? just doesn't sound right. it compounds an otherwise normal reaction to toe-suffering with the claim that the sidewalk is intentionally evil. it's just tacky, man. sidewalks are your friend.

btw, have you heard the joke about the sidewalk? well you should have, because it's all over town.

okay. the universe is neither good nor evil, practices no teleology, and is perfectly indifferent to your toe. the calculus of your suffering is determined solely by your own constitution, and while suffering to some degree is always inevitable, you simply cannot pass judgement on the entirety of existence because of that.

it's not your fault that you suffer... but it ain't the universe's fault either, bub.

[Ecmandu]

okay you got me. it's just so idiosyncratically human to say a sidewalk violated your consent, ya know? just doesn't sound right. it compounds an otherwise normal reaction to toe-suffering with the claim that the sidewalk is intentionally evil. it's just tacky, man. sidewalks are your friend.

btw, have you heard the joke about the sidewalk? well you should have, because it's all over town.

okay. the universe is neither good nor evil, practices no teleology, and is perfectly indifferent to your toe. the calculus of your suffering is determined solely by your own constitution, and while suffering to some degree is always inevitable, you simply cannot pass judgement on the entirety of existence because of that.

it's not your fault that you suffer... but it ain't the universe's fault either, bub.

Everyone has one thing that cannot be taken or stolen from them, even if they are in chattel slavery, they always have the power to check if something is violating their consent or not. Every dictator who's ever lived hates this, every espouser of god who's every lived hates this, they loathe this one power that no being can take from them.

And you, are one of those beings trying to take it from them, "existence is violating my consent"

You hate it too. I would spend some time seriously examining that if I were you

[promethean75]

so what should i do?

[Ecmandu]

so what should i do?

Fight til the death. It may actually work, to be a consent appreciator. I make no promises, but it is the honorable life. The honorable life is to realize that the one thing we all have in common is consent violation, and just throw up a giant fuck you and make the world a better place.

[promethean75]

I'd rather do some prince

[Ecmandu]

I'd rather do some prince

I can't understand the lyrics. What's the song?

[phyllo]

I do not consent to you posting on ILP. Please stop violating my consent now. Ecmandu, stop posting now.

[Ecmandu]

I do not consent to you posting on ILP. Please stop violating my consent now. Ecmandu, stop posting now.

Even if we try as hard as we possibly can to avoid violating consent, we have NO CHOICE but to do so.

At least I'm speaking truth to power.

[phyllo]

I do not consent to you posting on ILP. Please stop violating my consent now. Ecmandu, stop posting now.

Even if we try as hard as we possibly can to avoid violating consent, we have NO CHOICE but to do so.

At least I'm speaking truth to power.

If you stop posting here, then you can avoid violating my consent. Therefore, you will be doing less violating. Which has to be better than continuing to post.

Please stop now.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I do not consent to you posting on ILP. Please stop violating my consent now. Ecmandu, stop posting now.

Even if we try as hard as we possibly can to avoid violating consent, we have NO CHOICE but to do so.

At least I'm speaking truth to power.

If you stop posting here, then you can avoid violating my consent. Therefore, you will be doing less violating. Which has to be better than continuing to post.

Please stop now.

But this universe does you a way to stop having him violate your consent. You can use the 'foe' function.

It's where there is no effective foe function that the universe fails, here however, the universe does alright....

[phyllo]

That's not my point.

BTW, I have an internal 'foe' function and it might come up later.

[Ecmandu]

That's not my point.

BTW, I have an internal 'foe' function and it might come up later.

I am compelled to speak truth to power, you are compelled to censor it. Trying to live the least consent violating life, dictates that I speak about and post this stuff.

In the equation you violate more consent by wanting false to power.

You think you're being clever phyllo, but you're just not.

[phyllo]

That's not my point.

BTW, I have an internal 'foe' function and it might come up later.

I am compelled to speak truth to power, you are compelled to censor it. Trying to live the least consent violating life, dictates that I speak about and post this stuff.

In the equation you violate more consent by wanting false to power.

You think you're being clever phyllo, but you're just not.

Yeah, I figured when you are asked to stop violating someone's consent, you would find some rationalization for not stopping.

And since you continue to violate my consent, you must be evil ( according to your use of the English language).

[Ecmandu]

That's not my point.

BTW, I have an internal 'foe' function and it might come up later.

I am compelled to speak truth to power, you are compelled to censor it. Trying to live the least consent violating life, dictates that I speak about and post this stuff.

In the equation you violate more consent by wanting false to power.

You think you're being clever phyllo, but you're just not.

Yeah, I figured when you are asked to stop violating someone's consent, you would find some rationalization for not stopping.

And since you continue to violate my consent, you must be evil ( according to your use of the English language).

I am evil. So are you. Existence has it no other way.

I however, am less evil than you. It's objectively true because I speak truth to power. I'm the guy who says "fuck you" to an existence like this, you kowtow to false is power