Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:15 pm
Who is rejecting "all" values? Logic certainly doesn't reject all values. Logic doesn't rule people, people use logic to determine what to do and how to do it. If you're getting the idea that logic causes you to reject all values, then you must be following some other kind of logic than what I studied.
Objective moral skeptics are doing that. They claim that objective moral values don't exist. So I took away "falsehood" and we are left with a unary logic. A single-valued logic.
And now I am just telling the facts.
The universe began however it began.
Physics and Evolution happened.
And now we are right here. Right now.
This sentence doesn't exist.
I've given red font to the statements I agree are "facts". The last sentence and everything above the sentence "And now I am just telling the facts" (possibly including it) I am not so sure about.
You are doing everything to attack the premises.
Just assume all the necessary conditions for you being right here right now. With everything you know and believe.
What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:21 pm
Objective moral skeptics are doing that. They claim that objective moral values don't exist. So I took away "falsehood" and we are left with a unary logic. A single-valued logic.
And now I am just telling the facts.
The universe began however it began.
Physics and Evolution happened.
And now we are right here. Right now.
This sentence doesn't exist.
I've given red font to the statements I agree are "facts". The last sentence and everything above the sentence "And now I am just telling the facts" (possibly including it) I am not so sure about.
You are doing everything to attack the premises.
Just assume all the necessary conditions for you being right here right now. With everything you know and believe.
What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?
Attacking premises is fair game in logic. It's how logic works. At least that's how I learned it. Not sure about this new logic you seem to be embracing.
I've given red font to the statements I agree are "facts". The last sentence and everything above the sentence "And now I am just telling the facts" (possibly including it) I am not so sure about.
You are doing everything to attack the premises.
Just assume all the necessary conditions for you being right here right now. With everything you know and believe.
What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?
Attacking premises is fair game in logic. It's how logic works. At least that's how I learned it. Not sure about this new logic you seem to be embracing.
It is the same logic.
I am just making sure that your strategy “attacking the premises “ is self-defeating.
Hence: all necessary conditions for your existence.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 6:33 pm
You are doing everything to attack the premises.
Just assume all the necessary conditions for you being right here right now. With everything you know and believe.
What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?
Attacking premises is fair game in logic. It's how logic works. At least that's how I learned it. Not sure about this new logic you seem to be embracing.
It is the same logic.
I am just making sure that your strategy “attacking the premises “ is self-defeating.
Hence: all necessary conditions for your existence.
Whatever. Enjoy the power. Just don't use it foolishly.
Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 12:21 am
I know some people whose morality is objectionable, if not objective.
I disagree. How can objective morality be objectionable? If their morality is objectionable, then it should still remain not objective (whether it's objective or not)!
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 11:39 amOn 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.
You have to learn what the word "truth" means.
Morality is indeed objective, but by trying to prove it by using the kind of arguments that you're using, you will only achieve the opposite. And that might be your goal.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:40 am
And that might be your goal.
I'll put the best face on it that I can and say he doesn't quite know what he's doing. If he disagrees with my assessment, then he'll have to chime in to confirm otherwise.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:40 am
You have to learn what the word "truth" means.
I know what it means.
Hence me pointing out that ALL the necessary conditions for any existent's existence are necessarily true. Whatever the origin story: Genesis, Big Bang, Flying spaghetti monster. Doesn't matter.
The argument is true in every origin story e.g It's true for all premises.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:40 am
Morality is indeed objective, but by trying to prove it by using the kind of arguments that you're using, you will only achieve the opposite. And that might be your goal.
It doesn't achieve the opposite. It removes the privilege enjoyed by the skeptic.
The game now flips. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to figure out what's "wrong" with the last sentence because everything preceding it is necessary truth.
If the universe is the set of all necessary truths - from where does "falsehood" come?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:08 pm
The moral skeptics have told us that there are no such things as values
They do?
It is a necessary logical consequence of doubt e.g logical negation.
Doubt by infinite induction results in nihilism. As per the premise: Logic itself is the viciously recursive pre-supposition of right and wrong. True and False. A two-valued system.
Hence the argument from necessary truth which is a single-valued system. From where does the second value "falsehood" (the negation of truth) come from?
From skeptics. By negating the system.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Sep 21, 2023 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:08 pm
The moral skeptics have told us that there are no such things as values
They do?
It is a necessary logical consequence of doubt e.g logical negation.
Doubt by infinite induction results in nihilism. As per the premise: Logic itself is the viciously recursive pre-supposition of right and wrong. True and False.
Hence the argument from necessary truth which is a single-valued logic. From where does the second value "falsehood" (the negation of truth) come from?
From skeptics. By negation.
I couldn't follow that. But at a general level are you saying that their beliefs entail that (they believe) there are no values?
