Morality is Objective

[Skepdick]

Logic itself is the viciously recursive presupposition of morality.

On the monist/reductionist world-view: everything that has ever happened from the beginning of time to this day is truth and truth alone.
Nature is Nature. Everything that exists is fact. Only truth is possible in this universe. There exists only one truth-value.
Truth itself. What else?

Only truth can be spoken because nothing other than truth exists.

Therefore it is objectively true that this sentence does not exist.

[Sculptor]

tautology
noun [ C or U ]
UK /tɔːˈtɒl.ə.dʒi/ US /tɑːˈtɑː.lə.dʒi/
Add to word list
the use of two words or phrases that express the same meaning, in a way that is unnecessary and usually unintentional:
No one talks about "creative music", because it would be a tautology.
Try to avoid repetition or tautology.

in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), a statement that is always true:
There are the propositions of science and ordinary language on the one hand, and the tautologies of maths and logic on the other.

[Skepdick]

tautology
noun [ C or U ]
UK /tɔːˈtɒl.ə.dʒi/ US /tɑːˈtɑː.lə.dʒi/
Add to word list
the use of two words or phrases that express the same meaning, in a way that is unnecessary and usually unintentional:
No one talks about "creative music", because it would be a tautology.
Try to avoid repetition or tautology.

in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), a statement that is always true:
There are the propositions of science and ordinary language on the one hand, and the tautologies of maths and logic on the other.

Yes, thanks for this. I used my understanding of recursion/computer science to formulate the tautology. It was by choice.

So you agree that this is tautologically true then?

Therefore it is true that this sentence does not exist.

[Harbal]

Logic itself is the viciously recursive presupposition of morality.

On the monist/reductionist world-view: everything that has ever happened from the beginning of time to this day is truth and truth alone.
Nature is Nature. Everything that exists is fact. Only truth is possible in this universe. There exists only one truth-value.
Truth itself. What else?

Only truth can be spoken because nothing other than truth exists.

Therefore it is objectively true that this sentence does not exist.

Why do you only ever do meaningless or worthless?

[Skepdick]

Why do you only ever do meaningless or worthless?

A true question! Wow. Wonderful.

Why do you think a tautology is meaningless when it simply means that it's true in all possible interpretations?

What value or use (worth) is truth supposed to have other than being true?

[Harbal]

Why do you only ever do meaningless or worthless?

A true question! Wow. Wonderful.

Why do you think a tautology is meaningless when it simply means that it's true in all possible interpretations?

What value or use (worth) is truth supposed to have other than being true?

So what are you telling me that will be any use to me?

[Skepdick]

So what are you telling me that will be any use to me?

I am telling you that morality is objective.

I noticed you were participating in the threads around the question "Is morality objective?"

Seems like knowing that it's objective matters to you.

[Harbal]

So what are you telling me that will be any use to me?

I am telling you that morality is objective.

I noticed you were participating in the threads around the question "Is morality objective?"

Seems like knowing that it's objective matters to you.

Which aspects of morality are objective? I would ask what, exactly, you mean by "objective", but I know from experience that there would be no point.

[Gary Childress]

Why do you only ever do meaningless or worthless?

A true question! Wow. Wonderful.

Why do you think a tautology is meaningless when it simply means that it's true in all possible interpretations?

What value or use (worth) is truth supposed to have other than being true?

So what are you telling me that will be any use to me?

Maybe you have the question reversed? He's a computer scientist, maybe he wants a Nobel prize? If he invents Skynet, then maybe the Nobel committee will give him one?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Peter Kropotkin]

no, morality is not objective...

Objective, that would mean that morality can be applied to everyone, equally...
and any kind of study of history clearly shows that every state/society
has different morals/different ethics.... and what standard, and standards
are what ethics/morals are, what standard can you use that is universal?

For example, if you use Christian ethics/morals, does that mean that the
ancient Chinese, who used Confucius ethics were immoral people?
Nahhhh, it just means they used a different standard...which is what ethics/morals
are.... a standard of how we deal with others...

or we could try to think about the standards themselves.. for example,
the bible says, ''thou shall not kill'' it is a pretty clear and direct statement...
and yet, America, a pretend Christian nation, kills... the death penalty is
killing human beings... and that is an accepted practice... now if we were
to strictly follow the bible, then we are not allowed to kill others, for
any reason whatsoever... ''thou shall not kill'' does not have an exceptions
attached to it... ''like thou shall not kill'' unless you are protected yourself...
the bible doesn't say that...''thou shall not kill''' and any exceptions
is in violation of the bible... I am sure you approve of cops killing
civilians if they, the cops feel ''threatened"".. but that isn't in the bible...
over the last year that they had statistics, the cops killed over 1300 people..
and the vast majority of them were blacks... is that being moral or ethical
to kill others like this? and what objective standard are cops using when
they arbitrarily kill others?

for us as well as cops, they use ''ad hoc" standards, which is to say they
use situational ethics... or the situation dictates the ethics... and any use
of situational ethics is the direct opposite of ''morality is objective''...

in your own day to day life, do you yourself believe or operate under
the idea that "morality is objective"... and if so, what objective standard
do you use? and do you violate that standard? if yes, then you too are using
situational ethics...

so, no.... at no point is morality objective.....

Kropotkin

[Skepdick]

no, morality is not objective...

Contradiction.

[Skepdick]

So what are you telling me that will be any use to me?

I am telling you that morality is objective.

I noticed you were participating in the threads around the question "Is morality objective?"

Seems like knowing that it's objective matters to you.

Which aspects of morality are objective? I would ask what, exactly, you mean by "objective", but I know from experience that there would be no point.

Why are you being skeptical about the meaning of a tautology?

Are you saying that the argument is not true?

What would "NOT true" be like in a universe where only truth exists ?!?

[Harbal]

I am telling you that morality is objective.

I noticed you were participating in the threads around the question "Is morality objective?"

Seems like knowing that it's objective matters to you.

Which aspects of morality are objective? I would ask what, exactly, you mean by "objective", but I know from experience that there would be no point.

Why are you being skeptical about the meaning of a tautology?

Are you saying that the argument is not true?

What would "NOT true" be like in a universe where only truth exists ?!?

What a bargain. I got three questions back in return for one.

[Peter Kropotkin]

no, morality is not objective...

Contradiction.

K: and feel free to show me my ''contradiction''
and try to actually explain it.. instead of a one word sentence..

Kropotkin

[Skepdick]

no, morality is not objective...

Contradiction.

K: and feel free to show me my ''contradiction''
and try to actually explain it.. instead of a one word sentence..

Kropotkin

The argument is true. A tautology. It is necessarily true in all possible interpretations (including yours).

And yet you rejected a sound/valid logical conclusion. Contradiction.