Philosophy Now Forum

ok, you haven't even made an argument.... all you have done
is throw out random sentences like "morality is objective"
and that isn't an argument... that is a statement that has
no basis in fact..... MAKE AN ARGUMENT... that supports
your random sentences... why is morality objective?
start there...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 3:49 pm ok, you haven't even made an argument.... all you have done
is throw out random sentences like "morality is objective"
and that isn't an argument... that is a statement that has
no basis in fact..... MAKE AN ARGUMENT... that supports
your random sentences... why is morality objective?
start there...

Kropotkin

Which part of the thought experiment didn't you understand?
I am setting the stage for you. Imagine the entire story of humanity right from the beginning.

The universe began however it began.
Physics and Evolution happened.
And now we are right here. Right now.
The moral skeptics have told us that there are no such things as values so we accept their premises.

Are you satisfied that this is the setting of the nihilistic paradigm? Only facts! NO values. Not even "true" and "false"!

And then I say....

This sentence doesn't exist.

'' Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more. It is a tale told
by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing''

And your tale? full of sound and fury signifying nothing..

Kropotkin

For whatever it's worth, I think morality is objective by necessity. If I didn't think morality was objective, then it wouldn't be morality. What would be the point of morality if it didn't apply to my behavior toward other people too? There would be no such thing as the "right" or "wrong" thing for me to do if there were no other people in the world around me. If the world was just a mass of inanimate rocks and dirt, then I could do whatever I felt like doing at whim.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:25 pm '' Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more. It is a tale told
by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing''

And your tale? full of sound and fury signifying nothing..

Kropotkin

My tale signifies everything. The entire history of the universe to this very moment in time and space.

And then we reject the possibility of objective moral values.
We reject the very possibility of right and wrong.

And then we say: This sentence doesn't exist.

In such a universe the above sentence is not even false. Because the ideas of "truth" and "falsehood" don't even exist.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:30 pm For whatever it's worth, I think morality is objective by necessity.

Yep, This is the argument I am making. True and False are necessary meaningful value judgments.

If you don't have them then everything is true. Cold hard facts. Values don't exist.

So I am tryng to imagine what "falsehood" could even mean in such a universe.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:30 pm For whatever it's worth, I think morality is objective by necessity.

Yep, This is the argument I am making. True and False are necessary value judgments.

If you don't have them you can't determine anything.

Are you sure? I can say it is true that a rock is about to fall on my head or I can say it's true that an extremely irate person is about to punch me in the face. Are you suggesting that both of those are equally moral "value judgments"? They seem different to me. If a rock is about to fall on my head, then I may do whatever I want to the rock (including blow it up with a bazooka). If, on the other hand, a person is about to punch me in the face, then there are some things I ought to do and some I ought not.

Are you sure you wish to equate all "true and false judgments" as equal?

Or I suppose I ought to put it this way. Are you sure those two statements ARE the same sort of "true and false" statements?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:59 pm Or I suppose I ought to put it this way. Are you sure those two statements ARE the same sort of "true and false" statements?

Yes. Logic is the implicit assumption of right and wrong.

Truth and falsehood.

Those are our primary objective values. Without them...

This sentence doesn't exist.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:56 pm Are you sure you wish to equate all "true and false judgments" as equal?

I am not. But that's the consequence of rejecting ALL values (including the implicit truth-values in logic).

No difference between truth and falsehood.

Which is why I used the evolutionary argument from beginning of time to NOW. It's necessarily true. A fact that we are right here right now.

And then we say: This sentence doesn't exist.

And now it's the moral skeptics' turn to explain what's "wrong" with that sentence. If anything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:10 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:56 pm Are you sure you wish to equate all "true and false judgments" as equal?

I am not. But that's the consequence of rejecting ALL values (including the implicit values in logic).

No difference between truth and falsehood.

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.

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.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:21 pm

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.

On second thought, maybe revise (in blue font) the first red fonted statement to: IFF the universe began, then the universe began however it began.

Studies concerning Physics and Evolution happened.