10k Philosophy challenge

[Age]

Age -

I am not obsessing over this particular case, I am giving you an example.

But, you are giving an example of some thing that does not even, really, relate to 'morality', itself. That is, in regards to your own definition of 'morality', which is; 'How you persons 'should' live your lives'.

Also, morality should give us answers to exactly this sort of question.

But, if 'morality' is how you define, say and/or claim it is, then 'morality', that is; 'How you people 'should' live your lives', is more like 'a question', itself, rather than giving you answers.

Also, I have already informed you of what 'the answer' is, and thus what 'the solution' is here, as well.

Do not abuse any thing.

If all of you people just did this, then there would not be absolutely any Wrong at all, in Life, and then absolutely every issue regarding 'morality', itself, would have already been 're-solved'.

It should guide us to make the right choices when faced with difficult decisions.

1. There are no so-called 'difficult' decisions.

2. If you chose to not abuse any thing, then you would always be making the Right choices, in Life.

I am not sure how much simpler and easier this could get.

How we should live our lives very much includes what we should do when the right answer isn't obvious.

But, the Right answer is always obvious.

Do not abuse any thing is the Right answer.

I am seeking answers,

And, I have given them to you. But you are not open to them, thus why you are not accepting them.

but I am seeking answers to a specific question.

What is the 'specific question', exactly?

What you are providing is assertions that the question is not worth asking.

Am I?

Why do you believe this, exactly?

Also, you are incorrect about assumptions. They are required for almost all knowledge in all disciplines.

So, if I am incorrect, then you are correct, right?

I did not simply say "how we should live our lives".

Are you absolutely sure?

I made a more specific statement and you claimed it was a pointless one. "Persons" refers to free, rational agents. "Humans" refers to a specific species of which we are members. Something can be a human without being a person (such as in cases of brain death) and something can be a person without being a human (intelligent aliens would be persons).

Is this 'to you', 'to some', or 'to every one'?

Your assertion that my methodology must be flawed because I have not yet answered perhaps the greatest question ever posed is a bit silly.

And, what do you believe is the so-called 'greatest question' ever posed, exactly?

I do not think there is yet a person on earth who knows the answer to how people should live their lives.

Okay. And, while you think this, this will effect 'the way' you read and listen to others.

If you think you know, then by all means share.

I have already. But, you have not been 'reading', and 'listening'.

However, if your answer is a vague platitude of the order "do not abuse anything", then I suggest that you are wrong.

Obviously you are absolutely free to suggest absolutely any thing, but why do you suggest that 'I am wrong', exactly?

And, 'wrong' in relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, if you did not already provide the 'specific question', exactly, above, then why not?

And, did you provide what the so-called 'greatest question' is, exactly, above here?

If no, then, also, why not?

'We' cannot give 'you' 'the answers' to questions which are not specifically expressed and made clear, obviously.

[Daniel McKay]

It does relate to how persons should live their lives.

That is not the answer to anything. That is a vague platitude. It does not help us determine the answer to difficult moral questions, it is unclear what it means, and there appears to be no reason why we should think it is correct. It is not only not the right answer, it is not even an answer. It is unclear what "abuse" means, and what "anything" means, and it seems to both not ask enough in terms of positive action (this principle seemingly requires no action by the man who comes across a drowning child on his way home) and ask far too much in terms restriction on action (it might also require I not weed my garden as this would presumably constitute abusing the weeds). It is not a good moral principle.

I am correct in claiming that most learning requires one to make some assumptions, yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Is this 'to you', 'to some', or 'to every one'?" In terms of what "persons" means, that's a reasonably common philosophical definition.

I have explicitly stated my questions many times, including in a primer that I wrote specifically for that purpose. In general, what I am suggesting is the greatest question ever posed is the question of how we ought to live our lives - the question of how we ought to be or act when ought is understood in a universal and objective manner. Specifically, in pursuit of the answer to that question, I have come here asking how we are to weigh freedom over different things against one another within the context of freedom consequentialism.

[Harbal]

you are absolutely free to keep talking with others about yours, and others, very False and Wrong interpretation of things.

Yes, I know I am, and so are you.

[Age]

It does relate to how persons should live their lives.

Would you like to share with the readers here what the word 'It' here is referring to, exactly?

Or, do you just prefer that 'we' all just, literally, keep guessing what 'it' is, exactly?

That is not the answer to anything.

Would you like to share with the readers here what the word 'that' here is referring to, exactly?

Or, do you just prefer that 'we' all just, literally, keep guessing what 'that' is, exactly?

That is a vague platitude.

Would you like to share with the readers here what the word 'That' here is referring to, exactly?

Or, do you just prefer that 'we' all just, literally, keep guessing what 'that' is, exactly?

It does not help us determine the answer to difficult moral questions, it is unclear what it means, and there appears to be no reason why we should think it is correct.

Would you like to share with the readers here what the word 'It' here is referring to, exactly?

Or, do you just prefer that 'we' all just, literally, keep guessing what 'it' is, exactly?

It is not only not the right answer, it is not even an answer.

Would you like to share with the readers here what the word 'It' here is referring to, exactly?

Or, do you just prefer that 'we' all just, literally, keep guessing what 'it' is, exactly?

It is unclear what "abuse" means, and what "anything" means, and it seems to both not ask enough in terms of positive action (this principle seemingly requires no action by the man who comes across a drowning child on his way home) and ask far too much in terms restriction on action (it might also require I not weed my garden as this would presumably constitute abusing the weeds). It is not a good moral principle.

LOL 'It' is CERTAINLY NOT a 'good moral principle' at all.

And, what the 'It' word here is referring to, exactly, is 'the way' you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' things here.

And, if someone of 'your age' is, still, unclear what the word 'abuse' means, then I suggest you learn how to find out and discover what words, themselves, mean, and exactly.

I am correct in claiming that most learning requires one to make some assumptions, yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Is this 'to you', 'to some', or 'to every one'?" In terms of what "persons" means, that's a reasonably common philosophical definition.

I understand how and why you are 'not sure what I mean'. I also understand that while you keep doing what you are here, then you will remain 'not sure what I mean'.

Also, what you have assumed here could not be more Wrong and/or Incorrect.

I have explicitly stated my questions many times, including in a primer that I wrote specifically for that purpose.

Here 'we' have another prime example of who claims that there is some 'specific question', somewhere, which it, supposedly, is 'looking for' 'the answer to', but which it will not just write down 'the specific question' here.

Which, obviously, makes some wonder what, exactly, would it be that is making this one be so 'secretive' here?

In general,

Why, 'in general'?

you claim that there is some 'specific question' that you want 'the answer to', so why not just write down what the 'specific question' is, exactly, instead of just speaking 'in general' terms?

what I am suggesting is the greatest question ever posed is the question of how we ought to live our lives - the question of how we ought to be or act when ought is understood in a universal and objective manner.

Look "daniel mckay", and 'see' if you can comprehend this most simplest thing.

If you, really, want to know how you so-called 'free rational agents' 'should', or 'ought', to live your lives, then you 'ought' and 'should' not abuse any thing.

Now, if absolutely any one of you so-called 'free' and 'rational' 'agents' believes and/or wants to claim that you 'should' or 'ought' to abuse absolutely any thing, then by all means please go on and explain your, so-called, 'rationality' here.

'I', for one, would especially love to see 'it'.

And, how you, 'free rational agents' our to be, or ought to act, when 'ought' is understood in a universal and objective manner, then you 'ought' not to be abusing absolutely any thing, while being with all's well being 'in thought' and doing, to others, how you would want things done to you, if you were in 'their place, position, or 'in their shoes' if one prefers. Also, have 'in thought', and 'do' in regards to only 'what is needed', unless, of course, doing 'what is wanted' is not abusing any thing.

This is the most universal and objective perspective in regards to 'morality', itself. That is, in regards to what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life.

Specifically, in pursuit of the answer to that question,

Once again, you, still, have not yet provided any 'actual question' here.

If you ever do provide one here, then I will answer it, for you.

Also, the more 'specific' the question is, then the more 'specific' the answer can and will be.

I have come here asking how we are to weigh freedom over different things against one another within the context of freedom consequentialism.

And, thus why you will never get 'the answer' to this drawn out, unnecessarily complicated, and completely convoluted, supposed, question here.

If you, really, want others to give you 'the answer' to 'a question' like:

How are 'we', (for the sake of this question here), 'rational people' to 'weigh freedom' over 'different things' against 'one another' within the context of 'freedom consequentialism', then you, "yourself", will have to be able to elaborate and/or clarify, exactly, and without any excuses at all what term and phrase 'freedom consequentialism' means and is referring to, absolutely, and exactly.

Are you able to do this?

[Age]

you are absolutely free to keep talking with others about yours, and others, very False and Wrong interpretation of things.

Yes, I know I am, and so are you.

If you think or believe that I have absolutely any False and/or Wrong interpretation of absolutely any thing, then please be a responsible and reasonable one and express what that, perceived False and/or Wrong interpretation is, exactly, and then present what the True and/or Right interpretation is, exactly.

Are you capable of doing this?

If yes, then will you do this?

If no, then why not?

[Daniel McKay]

Age -

I was not being facetious or obtuse when I pointed out that "abuse" and "anything" were too vague. "Anything" for example could refer to other living things, or things that can suffer, or to literally anything, which would be much broader. "Abuse" likewise could mean multiple different things. I certainly didn't ask you to define every word in all of your sentences. I'll thank you to offer me the same courtesy

For a clear definition of freedom consequentialism, please refer to the primer in my initial post. If you do cannot access that anymore, I will happily provide a link. You need only ask.

[Harbal]

you are absolutely free to keep talking with others about yours, and others, very False and Wrong interpretation of things.

Yes, I know I am, and so are you.

If you think or believe that I have absolutely any False and/or Wrong interpretation of absolutely any thing, then please be a responsible and reasonable one and express what that, perceived False and/or Wrong interpretation is, exactly, and then present what the True and/or Right interpretation is, exactly.

I have no responsibility for doing that. I will just say that being irrefutably right is not all that difficult when you take it upon yourself to be in sole charge of all definitions and context.

Are you capable of doing this?

Probably not; I simply don't have the patience.

If no, then why not?

I've just told you why not; please pay attention.

[Dubious]

You echo my thoughts completely. I'd like to say your company will be missed...but I won't.

You're the one who's well-known in exactly the way it's described, and been informed of such by others many times. Unfortunately, a brain like yours is impervious to any kind of reform or insight. That much about you is crystal clear. Most of your near 24,000 posts prove it!

You remain firmly anchored to your prejudices like a derelict ship that never leaves port.

This is the direct result and consequence of having, and maintaining, beliefs, themselves.

Without beliefs we are nothing. It's impossible not to have beliefs. The value of a belief is in its content. If its defense requires the debasement of both facts and other challenging counter-beliefs which is how most theists, especially of the most extreme type, defend their holy books, it will bring the value of what they believe and so fanatically defend, near to nil.

It's not unusual to judge the merit of any view, doctrine, philosphy or scripture by the behaviour of them who adhere to it. It's simply human nature to judge by one's actions and reactions. In that respect, theists fare rather badly.

You will notice that whenever they strive to intellectually defend the faith, they invariably refer to another theistically inspired tome written by another theist or Reverend of some kind...never by anyone who merely want's to examine factually how these beliefs derived. Such endeavors are ostracised from the start as near to blasphemy.

All of the Abrahamic religions, in whatever form, are Islamic in the sense that all three demand complete submission, total surrender which translates not merely to enforced beliefs but as well to its unquestioning obedience...or else!

[Age]

Yes, I know I am, and so are you.

If you think or believe that I have absolutely any False and/or Wrong interpretation of absolutely any thing, then please be a responsible and reasonable one and express what that, perceived False and/or Wrong interpretation is, exactly, and then present what the True and/or Right interpretation is, exactly.

I have no responsibility for doing that.

Of course you 'a person' has no responsibility at all, in Life.

However, a 'matured' or 'grown up' adult human being knows that it has 'a responsibility' to help and support others in what is known to be Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

So, you can be a responsible human being and help and support others, when you know of any thing Wrong that they are doing, or you can remain believing that you have 'no responsibility' at all in providing what you believe to be the True and Right knowledge/interpretation of things to others.

I will just say that being irrefutably right is not all that difficult when you take it upon yourself to be in sole charge of all definitions and context.

An exceptional and excellent point you make here "harbal". See, it is not hard nor complex at all to just present the actual and irrefutable Truth of things here, only.

Now, what I have observed is that some of you adult human beings are searching for the TOE and the GUT. And, when these two things were uncovered, and are to be expressed and shared, as One combined explanation of and for all things, then, obviously, because the 'current' definitions of words, hitherto when this is being written, has not worked out fully, and thus completely successfully, then the closest definitions to the 'current' definitions is, and was, needed.

And, by the way, it was only through 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, from a 'current' list of definitions, with only the 'slightest of tweaking' is how, and from where, the irrefutable GUTOE was uncovered, and thus came-into-being.

Furthermore, every single definition, and context, is one that absolutely every one could agree with, anyway.

Are you capable of doing this?

Probably not; I simply don't have the patience.

If no, then why not?

I've just told you why not; please pay attention.

LOL This is extremely funny "harbal".

See, this was the so-called "old harbal" that I, for one anyway, Truly enjoyed having around.

Now, hopefully "harbal" made this joke here, on purpose.

[Age]

You're the one who's well-known in exactly the way it's described, and been informed of such by others many times. Unfortunately, a brain like yours is impervious to any kind of reform or insight. That much about you is crystal clear. Most of your near 24,000 posts prove it!

You remain firmly anchored to your prejudices like a derelict ship that never leaves port.

This is the direct result and consequence of having, and maintaining, beliefs, themselves.

Without beliefs we are nothing.

Once again here is further proof of just how indoctrinated some people had become into 'the cult/ure' in which they have grown up and/or live in.

It's impossible not to have beliefs. [/quote]

Now, why do you believe this?

And, like all of my Truly open clarifying questions that I ask here, 'I' ask 'you' this in the hope that 'you' will really 'stop' and just 'consider', 'Why do 'i', the one known as "dubious" believe that it is impossible not to have beliefs?

Consider, also, what would happen if it was possible to just not believe any thing, and what would actually happen and occur?

The value of a belief is in its content.

Okay. But, it could also be said and claimed the value of not having a belief is in 'its' context, as well.

Do you align with 'this' also?

If no, then why not?

If its defense requires the debasement of both facts and other challenging counter-beliefs which is how most theists, especially of the most extreme type, defend their holy books, it will bring the value of what they believe and so fanatically defend, near to nil.

What you are saying and claiming about 'those people' is exactly what you 'are doing' here, with 'your belief' here.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware but I do not do 'debate'.

So, you are absolutely free to believe, absolutely or not, that you 'must' have beliefs, and that it is an absolute impossibility for you not to have beliefs. But, if this is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then just provide that actual proof for your claim, and belief, here.

If, and when, you do, then, obviously, there is not a human being who could refute 'your claim and belief' here.

It's not unusual to judge the merit of any view, doctrine, philosphy or scripture by the behaviour of them who adhere to it. It's simply human nature to judge by one's actions and reactions. In that respect, theists fare rather badly.

Okay. This view/belief is from one who does not hold "theist's" beliefs, obviously. And, just as obvious, is one with "theist's" beliefs with 'believe' otherwise.

But, saying and claiming things like you are here are not backing up and supporting your belief, and claim, here that:

Without beliefs we are nothing.

Also, have you noticed that you are criticizing some people for 'their beliefs' while also proposing, at the exact same time, that 'they have to have their beliefs'?

You will notice that whenever they strive to intellectually defend the faith, they invariably refer to another theistically inspired tome written by another theist or Reverend of some kind...never by anyone who merely want's to examine factually how these beliefs derived.

Have you 'examined' 'where' your beliefs came from?

If yes, then 'where', exactly?

But, if no, then why expect 'others' to do what you have not yet?

Such endeavors are ostracised from the start as near to blasphemy.

Is this a bit like when 'I' am ostracized, from the start, when I point out and say that you human beings do not 'have to' believe things?

Are you adult human beings so 'accustomed' to 'the beliefs' that you have acquired and obtained, along the way, in your own individual and very different and separate paths, in Life, that when it is being explained that, 'Actually you do not 'have to' have beliefs', that this Fact, although irrefutably True, just goes 'against' the 'current' belief/s within some of you, that 'those ones' will just instantly reject the view and idea, without ever even just 'stopping' to 'consider' it, for even just a minute moment of 'time'?

Saying, 'Actually you do not 'have to' have beliefs', to some, was like saying, 'Actually the sun does not revolve around the earth', to others.

Now, obviously some are open, and thus able to learn, while others are closed, completely.

And, why you human beings are either open, closed, or anywhere in between is because of and depends up the actual pre-existing beliefs, and presumptions within 'you', at 'the time'.

All of the Abrahamic religions, in whatever form, are Islamic in the sense that all three demand complete submission, total surrender which translates not merely to enforced beliefs but as well to its unquestioning obedience...or else!

But, complete submission and/or total surrender in absolutely no way translates to 'enforced beliefs' at all not to an 'unquestioning obedience' at all.

In fact I found the exact opposite to be the case. That is; only when what the very Thing, Itself, is, exactly, that the God word is referring to, was found not through 'belief' nor 'unquestioning' at all. But, rather though 'no belief', being OPEN, and through 'questioning' CURIOSITY, and a 'thirst/quench' to 'keep learning'.

But, if you want to 'keep believing' what you do, and thus are 'submissive' and have an 'unquestioning obedience' to those 'beliefs', then by all means you are absolutely free to do so.

However, just remember, while you believe some things is true, then you are 'not open', and thus are 'submitted/submissive' to 'that belief', and, obviously while you are 'believing' some thing is true, you are not going to 'question' 'it', at all, and thus you will be following, abiding by, and/or obedient to, 'that belief'.

But, you have absolutely no choice at all here, right "dubious"? As you 'have to' have beliefs', correct?

Just out of curiosity, How does one 'choose' 'the beliefs', which they 'have to' have, and are holding onto, and maintaining?

And, when can one 'decide' when to 'let go' of 'some beliefs' and/or 'replace' 'those old beliefs' with new/er ones, exactly?

[Daniel McKay]

This challenge has now closed. A solution I am satisfied with has been found. While the solution was found by me, someone did partly inspire me with what they said, so they received 5% of the money as an inspiration fee.

[Age]

This challenge has now closed. A solution I am satisfied with has been found. While the solution was found by me, someone did partly inspire me with what they said, so they received 5% of the money as an inspiration fee.

Okay.

Why does it NOT SURPRISE 'me' that 'you', of ALL people, happened to FIND 'it'?

[Age]

Age -

I was not being facetious or obtuse when I pointed out that "abuse" and "anything" were too vague. "Anything" for example could refer to other living things, or things that can suffer, or to literally anything, which would be much broader.

I only just noticed this post.

LOL So, to 'this one', the word 'anything' could refer to, literally, 'anything'. LOL

"Abuse" likewise could mean multiple different things.

But, the word 'abuse' essentially, and literally, has only one or a few meanings.

Which, when DELVED INTO, are NOT 'vague' AT ALL.

I certainly didn't ask you to define every word in all of your sentences. I'll thank you to offer me the same courtesy

Where you UNDER SOME SORT OF DELUSION that you WERE or WOULD BE ASKED to define EVERY word in ANY, let alone ALL, of your sentences?

For a clear definition of freedom consequentialism, please refer to the primer in my initial post. If you do cannot access that anymore, I will happily provide a link. You need only ask.

I have ALREADY talked ABOUT your OWN DEFINITION above, here. I refer 'you' TO 'my words', here, in this thread.

[Daniel McKay]

While I am primarily happy that I solved the problem, and secondarily happy that I get 95% of my money back, I am also tertiarily happy that I no longer have any need to politely engage with ranting in half-caps on the internet.

[Age]

While I am primarily happy that I solved the problem, and secondarily happy that I get 95% of my money back, I am also tertiarily happy that I no longer have any need to politely engage with ranting in half-caps on the internet.

Okay. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are WANTING, here, now?

Besides, OF COURSE, you GLOATING?