Morality is Objective

[Skepdick]

Your rejecion of the belief in belief (when amplified to is maximum) amounts to the disbelief in the possibility of knowledge. Maximum entropy/doubt is absence of knowledge.

Irrespective of what you think.

You cannot have absence of knowledge, because knowledge is needed to know you hare holding to a belief in something, and even the non-belief in the belief you are holding still requires a knowledge that there is such a thing known as a non-belief of a belief..

I know.

[Dontaskme]

Your rejecion of the belief in belief (when amplified to is maximum) amounts to the disbelief in the possibility of knowledge. Maximum entropy/doubt is absence of knowledge.

Irrespective of what you think.

You cannot have absence of knowledge, because knowledge is needed to know you are holding to a belief in something, and even the non-belief in the belief you are holding still requires a knowledge that there is such a thing known as a non-belief of a belief..

I know.

I know, is known.

And that's all that can be known, because there is only knowing.

But so what, what has knowing got anything to do with the price of chips?

[promethean75]

That OP is one of the strangest 'arguments' for objective morality I've ever seen.

Seems like SD is tryna say something like: everything that happens is true, objectively. Morality happens, therefore it is true, objectively.

[Skepdick]

Seems like SD is tryna say something like: everything that happens is true, objectively. Morality happens, therefore it is true, objectively.

You ALMOST understood it. Let me help.

It's an argument from continuity (if there is such a thing, if not - I just invented the word).
Nature is continuous. There is a direct path all the way from your favourite origin story (be it big bang, be it god, be it ex nihilio miracle).

You are here. Now and all of it is true ontologically. Irrespective of what anybody says or believes about that. A fact.

OK. What or where is "falsehood" in this universe?

I am not arguing FOR objective morality.
I am arguing AGAINST objective immorality.

Falsehood doesn't exist.

So what's "wrong" (if anything) with the sentence "This sentence does not exist."? It can't be "false". Falsehood doesn't exist.

Which was the very opening statement of the argument: Logic itself is the viciously recursive presupposition of morality.

True ≡ Right
False ≡ Wrong

If the moral skeptic is to be believed then there is nothing wrong/false with "This sentence doesn't exist".

Don't you find that strange? Everybody else does. For some reason.

[promethean75]

This is either some cryptic Wittgenstein level shit or u woke up this morning, smoked a joint and posted in this thread.

If i may, regarding the 'falsehoods don't exist' claim, I'd suggest that part of the Truth (which is everything that is) is that some things are NOT the case, NOT true, etc. These expressions come in the form of negations in language. So, while there are no empirical, physical falsehoods (if a thing exists, it is real, true, etc.) there are conceptual falsehoods that exist in the form of negations in language.

So if i say 'that cat is not an airplane', I'm saying that there is a falsehood that can be expressed with language in the world: 'the cat is an airplane'.

[Magnus Anderson]

You have to learn what the word "truth" means.

I know what it means.

That's what you think, and unless you're interested to hear why other people think you're wrong, how are you going to correct it if it happens to be a mistake? You haven't shown an interest so far. When someone says "That's not true" and you respond with "It is", that's a sign you don't care about their reasoning, that you're here merely to preach.

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.

Emphasis is mine.

Whoever these monists and reductionists are, I don't think you understand what is it that they are saying. I find it hard to believe that they are saying that everything that took place in the past is truth.

If the universe is the set of all necessary truths - from where does "falsehood" come?

The universe is not a set of truths. You are a part of the universe yet you are not truth. This forum is part of it too yet it is not truth. The current president of the United States of America is part of it too yet he's not truth.

The word "truth" denotes a proposition that is true, i.e. one that corresponds to the portion of reality it is referring to.

The word "falsehood" denotes the opposite type of proposition, i.e. one that is false, that does not correspond to the portion of reality it refers to.

Truths and falsehoods are propositions. Not everything is a proposition. People aren't propositions. Rocks aren't propositions. Mountains aren't propositions. Molecules and atoms aren't propositions. Most of the stuff that constitutes the universe is NOT a proposition.

When a proposition is held by someone to be true, it is called a belief. Beliefs exist. And some of those beliefs are true, meaning they are truths, and some of them are false, meaning they are falsehoods. There are true and false beliefs all over the place, hence, truths and falsehoods exist.

[Skepdick]

That's what you think, and unless you're interested to hear why other people think you're wrong

I would be happy to hear every single one of them.

Start by defining "wrong".

When someone says "That's not true"

Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true".

Everything's true. In nature only facts.

Whoever these monists and reductionists are, I don't think you understand what is it that they are saying. I find it hard to believe that they are saying that everything that took place in the past is truth.

I find it hard to believe that you reject the necessary conditions for you to even be here and speak these exact words.

You think your existence is a proposition? A mere opinion? Heh.

proposition
/ˌprɒpəˈzɪʃn/
noun
1.
a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion.

[Magnus Anderson]

Start by defining "wrong".

You don't understand what the word "truth" means. You don't understand how other people use it and you also do not understand how you're using it yourself.

Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true".

I already did but you ignored it.

Everything's true. In nature only facts.

You're confusing the word "truth" with the word "fact".

The word "fact" means "that which exists or that which took place".

The word "truth" means "a proposition that is true, i.e. that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to".

Everything that took place in the past is a fact. That is true. But it is not true that everything that existed in the past is an instance of truth.

Rocks, mountains, rivers, molecules, atoms, etc are all facts. But they are not truths.

[Skepdick]

Start by defining "wrong".

You don't understand what the word "truth" means. You don't understand how other people use it and you also do not understand how you're using it yourself.

Oh I understand it just fine.

I am just wondering if you understand the OP? And whether you agree that morality is objective?

Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true".

I already did but you ignored it.

All you did was give me a definition.

But you didn't tell me what makes your definition "not true".

Everything's true. In nature only facts.

You're confusing the word "truth" with the word "fact".

It's time you stop projecting your confusion onto me.

The word "fact" means "that which exists or that which took place".

Why does it mean that?

The word "truth" means "a proposition that is true, i.e. that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to".

Why does it mean that?

Everything that took place in the past is a fact. That is true. But it is not true that everything that existed in the past is an instance of truth.

Yes it does. Nature is Truth. Truth is Nature. Monism.

Rocks, mountains, rivers, molecules, atoms, etc are all facts. But they are not truths.

You are trying really hard to confuse yourself by splitting hairs.

[Magnus Anderson]

All you did was give me a definition.

That's what you asked for.

Let me quote you:

Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true".

Moving on.

But you didn't tell me what makes your definition "not true".

Nothing. It's a true definition.

It's time you stop projecting your confusion onto me.

It's about time you stop being so defensive and start listening to what other people have to say.

The word "fact" means "that which exists or that which took place".

Why does it mean that?

The word "truth" means "a proposition that is true, i.e. that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to".

Why does it mean that?

These words mean what they mean because that's the meaning people imbued them with.

Yes it does. Nature is Truth. Truth is Nature. Monism.

MIsuse of the word "truth".

You are trying really hard to confuse yourself by splitting hairs.

You're trying really hard to destroy philosophy.

[Skepdick]

All you did was give me a definition.

That's what you asked for.

Let me quote you:

Then it's on you to define what you mean by "not true".

Moving on.

Why are you moving on?

I know what I asked you. You haven't given it yet.

Define "not true".
Keep defining.

When your definition satisfies me I'll let you know.

But you didn't tell me what makes your definition "not true".

Nothing. It's a true definition.

Listen. I think you are not understanding me. I know that you defined it.

Obviously you did. But what makes your words mean "true" ?

It's time you stop projecting your confusion onto me.

It's about time you stop being so defensive and start listening to what other people have to say.

I am listening. You aren't saying anything meaningful.

You are just defining words.

These words mean what they mean because that's the meaning people imbued them with.

People "imbued" words with meaning? Where is it? I can't see any meaning in your words.

You are just defining things in circles.

Yes it does. Nature is Truth. Truth is Nature. Monism.

MIsuse of the word "truth".

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I am using the word.

What does "misuse" mean?

You're trying really hard to destroy philosophy.

I know. It's an objectively immoral discippline.

Redefinition is circular. It wastes time. You get nowhere.

I am a scientist, not a philosopher. How the fuck am outmaneuvering all these geniuses at their silly language games?

[Skepdick]

Philosophy is a tool for affecting other minds.

You can use it responsibly; or use it irresponsibily.

Eristic is irresponsible use of philosophy.

[Gary Childress]

I know. It's an objectively immoral discippline.

Redefinition is circular. It wastes time. You get nowhere.

I am a scientist, not a philosopher. How the fuck am outmaneuvering all these geniuses at their silly language games?

What do you mean when you seem to say that philosophy is an "objectively immoral discipline"?

If you're a scientist, then is science an "objectively immoral discipline" too? Or is science different in that respect to philosophy?

[Gary Childress]

Philosophy is a tool for affecting other minds.

You can use it responsibly; or use it irresponsibily.

Eristic is irresponsible use of philosophy.

Why do you say that eristic (debate) is irresponsible use of philosophy? Should people not debate things?

[Skepdick]

What do you mean when you seem to say that philosophy is an "objectively immoral discipline"?

It's not constructive. It's just question question question. Deconstruct. Deconstruct. Deconstruct. Reject. Reject. Reject.

It's going backwards in time, not forward.

If you're a scientist, then is science an "objectively immoral discipline" too? Or is science different in that respect to philosophy?

Yes. It's different. Science is constructive.

We actually want to answerthe questions, not keep the conversation going ad infinitum even after we have gotten an answer.
And we most definitely don't want to re-open dialogue about issues that have already been settled.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Basically. Philosophy insists on asking the question (for pedagogical reasons, I guess). Leaving it open. And then... never bothering to close it again with the correct answer.

Even though we already fucking know the answer.