• Everything In Time Has A Cause
    However, I think this is a bit defeatist. With such an attitude, science will not progress. — Devans99
    It looks like you misinterpreted me. What I said was that we cannot base our understanding of time based upon the way our brain perceives it - this also applies to our understanding of gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into.

    We understand time and causality well enough to draw some initial conclusions — Devans99
    This notion of causality has no place in physics. I can speak from experience as I was a physics major in college - albeit not a very good physicist. I can assure you that the notion of causality never appeared in my 4 years of undergraduate study. I did encounter it when I took Philosophy 101 & 102. However, this philosophical concept of causality does not correspond to reality at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Events happen with no prior measurable or discernible "cause" whatsoever.

    As far as time goes, it appears - based on our current understanding - that time started with the big bang some 13 odd billion years ago. However, that knowledge is *very* preliminary - and we cannot draw any other conclusions from it.

    I have no idea what you're getting at with the hamsters. I also have no illusions that I will change your mind.

    I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is :smile:
  • Everything In Time Has A Cause
    ↪Devans99

    I trust my mental faculties to function properly within its limited capabilities.

    Mankind in its current state has been on this planet for roughly 40,000 years or so. It is only within the last 100 years that we have become aware of the immensity of the universe we live in - and there are still vast gaps in our knowledge. If history is any guide, it is likely that much of our scientific knowledge of the universe will prove to be partially true and will be superseded by more encompassing theories. For all we know, the entire observable universe could be a microscopic pimple on something much larger.

    To think that we can unravel the mystery of time based on the functionality of our advanced monkey brains is a case of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge our limitations.
  • Everything In Time Has A Cause
    Thoughts flow in the mind. There are past thoughts, a present thought and future thoughts. — Devans99

    Respectfully suggest that you re-read and absorb what @Seditious has to say. Your reasoning is based

    on the assumption that the human perception of the linear progression of time is inherently correct and trustworthy. — Seditious
  • Is homosexuality an inevitability of evolution?
    The benevolant uncle
  • Self-studying philosophy
    ↪alcontali

    Your brother-in-law's experience is, unfortunately, all too common. As a recently retired programmer I can speak from experience. The ability to be a good programmer is something you either have or do not have. Many of the people I worked side by side with had non-technical backgrounds - musicians, English majors, people from other science disciplines, and even (gasp!) philosophy majors.

    That said, a good education can help. I got my graduate degree in CS. Very little of what I learned in school had any direct bearing on the things I encountered in the real world - and with 20/20 hindsight I could have stopped after I got my first job. However the courses I took in data structures, programming languages, math (e.g. set theory) gave me an advantage over my compatriots.
  • Why x=x ?
    I think Popeye expressed things very well

    Just extend his sentiments to "x" OR "apple" OR whatever :smile:
  • "Agnosticism"
    ↪Pfhorrest
    Let me amend my previous post, On re-thinking it, it does not even make sense to assert believe(undefined-G). Instead of believe(undefined-G) it is simpler to say G=Undefined (or null) and that G cannot be the operand of any function.

    I'm OK with being labeled as non-theist (I have no theistic beliefs), but I feel like your category schema is forcing me to take a position that I do not agree with.

    That said, I think my other objection is more of a practical affair. This fine tuning of definitions works in a philosophical discussion, but it has little real life value. If you were at, say, a family gathering or in some casual social context - you are going to get blank stares if you try to explain this stuff - that and likely people will avoid you for the rest of the evening :razz: . The average person has basic notions of atheism (deny that God exists) and agnosticism (not sure) - so if it comes up in conversation I will stick with calling myself an Ignostic - it's pretty easy to explain.

    Also - instead of saying that religious language is emotive, I prefer to say that it is a type of poetry. I suppose there's a lot of overlap between the two.

    I'll give you the last word.
  • "Agnosticism"
    ↪Pfhorrest
    I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the reasoning. From my perspective, you are limiting the range of possibilities.
    Let "G" be the proposition "God exists", whatever that means: — Pfhorrest
    Firstly, this does not appear to be a proposition. If we were to say "G" is the proposition "Qwerty exists", it would be reasonable to ask for a definition of "Qwerty", and if no coherent definition is provided you would be justified in saying that there is nothing to believe or dis-believe.

    However, even if you are allowing these sort of statements into your system, then you have to go into some sort of tri-valued logic. So in addition to believe(G), not-believe(G), believe(~G), it is reasonable add believe(undefined-G) into your approach.
  • "Agnosticism"
    ↪Pfhorrest

    Thanks for the reply. I may be mis-reading you, but there seems to be an inconsistency.
    weak atheism is the broad category of anything that isn't theism — Pfhorrest
    Weak atheists don't believe in any gods — Pfhorrest
    Ignosticism falls into that first definition, but not the second. I'm OK with saying that I'm not a theist. But I would not say that I don't believe in any gods. I consider that to be an incoherent position.

    Perhaps you could say that there are two broad categories - theism and non-theism? Then weak/strong atheism, ignosticism, agnosticism, etc would all fall under the broad category of non-theism?
  • "Agnosticism"
    Theists believe in at least one god
    Weak atheists don't believe in any gods
    Strong atheists believe there are no gods     — Pfhorrest
    I’m jumping in here with a little trepidation as I’m likely in way over my head in this conversation - so please indulge my amateur efforts.

    We briefly discussed this in another thread, so continuing that conversation. I don’t see myself as fitting into any of these categories. When I use the word “God”, I am referring to a character who appears in various works of mythology. Like many fictional characters, God has supernatural powers; more specifically, while God somehow (in a manner that is never explained) resides in an imaginary non-physical spiritual realm, God has the ultimate super power ability to (among other things) create and have complete control of the physical universe that we live in.

    So to ask “ Does God exist” is no different than asking “Does Harry Potter exist”. My response to these questions is “Why are you asking me if fictional characters exist?” The very definitions of the words make the question incoherent. It’s somewhat analogous to asking (to use well known examples) “Does quadruplicity drink procrastination” or “Do colorless green dreams sleep furiously?”

    Furthermore, unlike Harry Potter, the fictional God does not even physically exist in the fictional world - so the character is doubly incoherent (assuming that multiple nonsenses multiply and are not exponential :smile: )

    I’m aware of two schools of thought on this topic (there may be more but I’ll limit myself to the ones I sort of understand). One school of thought says, in essence, “Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination”. If I'm following, this would be a strong atheist position. The other approach - which I agree with - says that you cannot assert truth values to or coherently discuss nonsense sentences. I’m not seeing where this fits into one of these categories. So here I'm adding one more bullet point to your list:

    • Theists believe in at least one god
    • Weak atheists don't believe in any gods
    • Strong atheists believe there are no gods
    • ??? says that there is nothing to believe or not believe. Give me a coherent definition of the word "god(s)", then I’ll think it over.

    I could be mistaken but I think this somewhat aligns with either Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism.
  • Abortion and premature state of life
    ↪frank

    I see your point. I was trying to answer your question:
    Why are you talking about cysts? — frank
    Most discussions about abortion (e.g., this discussion) eventually lead to questions regarding the legality of preventing the blastocyst from being embedded in the endometrium. Hence the discussion about "cysts".
  • Abortion and premature state of life
    ↪frank


    Does this resemble a tiny human? My eyes are not what they used to be, but I think not.
  • Hume's Failed Attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect
    Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22     — Ron Cram
    I was a Physics major as an undergrad (albeit not a very good one). I can assure you that the expression "Cause and Effect" was never once mentioned in any of my classes. I checked out your link. My eyesight is not what it used to be, but I did not say a single textbook amongst them.

    "Cause and Effect" (AKA causality) is strictly a philosophical term that has no place in Physics.

    That said, Cause & Effect is a highly useful concept in our day to day lives - I rely on it to keep my pants from falling off.
  • Sartre's proof of universal being
    ↪NilsArnold
    Guilty as charged
  • Sartre's proof of universal being
    ↪god must be atheist

    I literally :lol: That was one of the funniest posts I've seen in a long time.
  • How important is (a)theism to your philosophy?
    ↪Pfhorrest

    For some reason, these discussions always seem to ignore ignosticism and it's twin sibling theological noncognitivism.
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    ↪3017amen

    “The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas”

    I like to think that I appreciate poetry as much as the next person on the street. You can do cool things with poetry that you can’t do with plain language or logic. I remember The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes as one of the first poems I was taught in school. Besides having alliteration, this line has one of the all time classic metaphors. “The moon was a ghostly galleon”. You can picture it in your minds eye. Oooh - nice one there Alfred.

    But of course we all recognize that this is a poem - and in reality the moon is most definitely not a ghostly galleon; it’s a giant hunk of rock orbiting around the earth roughly once every 28 days.

    So when we look at your posts, we see a series of metaphors & images - but nothing that connects with reality.

    Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

    1. Yes
    2. No
    . . .
    . . .

    1.Both.

    Existentially, my limited ability to reason accurately, leaves me with saying both. To that end, and maybe in a fun kind of way, the concept of God is: God is a mottled color of truth.     — 3017amen

    I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. Which of course they do, right? — 3017amen

    Umm, no. Truths do not exist, half truths do not exist, and lies do not exist. Physical objects exist.

    Pretty much everything you are saying falls into the same trap - the words may sound pretty to you, but there is no logic, no reason, and unfortunately no rhyme (which might at least make what you’re saying fun to read).

    I much prefer @PoeticUniverse's musings. @PoeticUniverse, if you’re reading this, I would be honored if you could make a poem out of what I'm saying.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    All that said, I am not telling you to abandon your beliefs. I was not aware of Christian Existentialism until you brought it up, so I have learned something new from this exchange. If your beliefs help you to make sense of your life and give you comfort, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. Compared to the more fundamentalist religions of the world, your beliefs seem relatively harmless.

    I am under no illusions that you will read this and say to yourself, “Oh no - everything I’ve believed in all my life is wrong”. But try to accept that all religion beliefs are irrational and have no basis in reality.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    And all that said, I actually agree in part with some of your critiques of Atheism. But as an Ignostic I have no skin in this particular game. And so I will leave you with the last word. . . .
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    ↪3017amen

    As other folks on this thread have been telling you in different ways, until you can give reasonably clear definitions of the words "God" and "exist" your position is incoherent and meaningless.

    I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. — 3017amen

    Do you see? You keep using the word "exist(s)" and "existing" - but as it stands, this sentence is just a bit of poetic whimsy with no meaning. Defining your terms is the first step.
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    ↪3017amen

    You've been very insistent that folks give you a specific answer to the question "Does God exist".

    But words have meaning. If you want an answer to your question, you need to give clear and coherent definitions of the words "God" and "exists". This is what I am attempting to get from you (so far unsuccessfully).

    Just e.g., here is a good definition of the word as I use it exists
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?
    ↪EricH     — 3017amen

    ↪EricH
    To answer your question, [several paragraphs of discussion]     — 3017amen

    I read through your response several times just to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, but I am still not seeing a definitive answer to the question. I believe you are answering "No", but I could be mis-understanding you. So please:

    Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

    1. Yes
    2. No
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?
    ↪EricH     — 3017amen

    In a Kierkegaardian sense I conceive God as an ineffable experience. Though if I were to put it into words I would say the Christian God is spirit. And for what it's worth there is some scripture that supports that. And of course the Book of Thomas that was left out of the Bible includes Gnosticism... — 3017amen

    So just to be 100% clear, your answer to my question is "No"?
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    ↪3017amen

    A good question. I will re-phrase:

    Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?
  • Atheism is untenable in the 21st Century
    Okay good for you. Just don't say: God does not exist. — 3017amen

    I don't say that. I say something along these lines:

    The word "God" does not represent any physical being or object in the universe.

    There are many variations of that sentence which express the same thought.
  • Godel's Incompleteness Theorems vs Justified True Belief
    Strictly a meta-comment here: this discussion is a good example or why I come out to this forum. A great exchange of ideas which leaves me more informed than before. And on top of that, no insults! :smile:
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?
    ↪L Michaud


    Ah - that's better. Also I mis-read the second half of the quote. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?
    Noam Chomsky said, saying "I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide — L Michaud

    I could be wrong but this does not sound like something Chomsky would say. Would you please point me to the source of this quote? Thanks!
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    Now, in plain English, once more, is the argument I made valid? You have said that it is. — Bartricks
    Sigh. I never once said that your argument was valid. But you're engaging in many cross discussions, so perhaps you mixed me up with someone else.

    Here is what I said:
    You appear to be making some basic errors in logic, What you are calling P & Q contain hidden variables and operators. BUT I keep an open mind - it is possible that I am mistaken. However, if you want to convince me that your logic is sound, we will need to unpack your logic — EricH

    Anyway . . . besides myself, multiple people have demonstrated to you from different angles that - while your formula may have the superficial appearance of being correct - when you get into the details it falls apart. It is neither logical nor valid. You can shout it from the rooftops, you can buy a billboard and plaster it across Times Square or Piccadilly Circus (which ever is closer to you), you can repeat the same thing over and over again and insult everyone who disagrees with you, but that is not going to change anything.

    - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now please take what I am about to say as constructive criticism. It is clear from your writing that you're reasonably intelligent and articulate. However, by your own admission:
    I don't know about all this DeMorgan stuff. — Bartricks
    I don't know what a truth table is — Bartricks
    you have made it clear that not only are deeply ignorant of basic Predicate and First Order Logic but that you have no desire to educate yourself. That's a shame.

    This is a highly technical philosophy forum, and the ability to understand Predicate & First Order Logic along with rudimentary set theory are basic skills needed to engage in any philosophical discussion. These are things that a philosophy major would take in their first year of study. If you don't understand these basic building blocks of modern philosophy, then no one here is going to take anything you say seriously.

    If you want to engage with other people on this forum, I recommend that you take some time and learn these skills - there are numerous online resources. If you get that far, you can stop at Modal Logic - that stuff is really hairy. :razz: If you are having trouble understanding some particular concept (e.g. negating an inference), then this forum is an excellent resource; there are many folks out here who will be glad to help.

    And now I give you the last reply (or insult) in this conversation . . .
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Happenstance
    I don't know about all this DeMorgan stuff. But what you've said seems plainly false.

    Q says "if I value something, [then] necessarily it is morally valuable"

    The negation of Q is not "if I don't value something, necessarily it is not morally valuable". That's not the opposite of Q at all, but Q again.

    The negation of Q is "If I value something, it is not necessarily morally valuable"     — Bartricks

    Your last statement is incorrect. That is not the negation of Q. Statement Q is an inference - it is in the form
    IF C THEN NECESSARILY D
    Notice that I am keeping the word necessarily in here, per your insistance,

    In order to negate an inference (your Q) you need to negate the full inference, not just part of it. This means that
    ~Q = ~(IF C THEN NECESSARILY D)
    In plain language that translates to "It is not the case that if I value something, [then] necessarily it is morally valuable"

    This is very different than "If I value something, it is not necessarily morally valuable". If you set up the truth tables you can verify this for yourself.

    If you do not believe me or otherwise think I'm wrong, please google negating an inference and show me a logical framework that says otherwise.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Happenstance

    Thank you for taking this on, you're doing a far better job than I could. I hope this is not too much of a burden on your time.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks

    Let’s take a step back here and review the big picture
    1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable
    2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable
    3. Therefore moral values are not my values.     — Bartricks
    You have been stating that this is logically sound because the sentences map to this logic:
    1. if P then Q
    2. Not Q
    3. Therefore not P     — Bartricks
    However, as many people have demonstrated, this mapping is clearly incomplete since both P & Q have embedded logic. E.g., at an absolute bare minimum we need to start by splitting out P into A = B. In fact it’s a lot more complicated than that.

    On top of that, you are using the word necessarily. Now 6 or 7 days ago,@Happenstance explained that if you are using the word necessarily then you need to use modal logic to represent your sentences in some proper logical form. Here is how @Happenstance converted your sentences into modal logic:

    ∀ = for all, ∃ = there exists a least one.
    Predicate V = value, M = moral.
    Variables x = not y nor z, y = person(implied by I or my), z = something,
    Necessarily = ∆.

    ∀x∃y∃z[
    1. (Vx&Mx→Vy)→ ( ∆(Vyz)→Vx&Mx)
    2. Vyz→¬∆(Vx&Mx)
    3. Vx&Mx→¬Vy
    ]     — Happenstance
    I did a quick run through of this, and while I am far from an expert in these things, it looks sound to me. @Happenstance then demonstrated that this is invalid for various reasons. He then asked you to map your sentences into first order predicate logic.

    Your response was that you were
    not sophisticated enough to do that — Bartricks

    What I am attempting to do here is to do what @Happenstance asked you to do, the only difference is that I am trying to use second order logic. The reason I am using second order logic is because it makes more sense to me to represent your term Moral Values as a set of individual moral values.

    But this still means that we must eliminate the word necessarily - and now we are back to this point. Here is your #1, along with some alternatives:

    A. If I am superman, then if superman goes to the grocery necessarily I go, because I am he.
    B. If I am superman, then if superman goes to the grocery obviously I go, because I am he.
    C. If I am superman, then if superman goes to the grocery then of course I go, because I am he.
    D. If I am superman, then there are no occurrences of superman to go to the grocery but not me, because I am he.
    E. If I am superman, then if superman goes to the grocery I go

    As far as I can tell, these sentences all have the exact same semantics and the same truth value - the word necessarily serves no purpose except to add additional emphasis.

    However, you seem be saying is that you need necessarily, otherwise your #2 is false. I have not even gotten to formulating #2; removing the necessarily from that is a separate task. But there’s no point in doing that if we cannot convert #1 into some formal representation.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    SO - all that said, you now have a decision to make. Do you want to convince me (and many others) that your logic is valid & sound? If yes, then you need to demonstrate that your sentences can be converted/mapped into some recognized system of formal logic.

    1. You can continue to work with me and see if we can convert your sentences into second order propositional logic. I cannot do this on my own, since some of your terms are not well defined and I need to figure out exactly what you mean.
    2. If you insist that the word necessarily is necessary, then you need to demonstrate that @Happenstance’s reasoning is flawed - of course you would also have to demonstrate a logically sound representation in modal logic.
    3. You can use some other generally recognized system of formal logic.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    1. If Bartricks Potter is Superman, then if Superman went to the grocery, necessarily Bartricks Potter went to the grocery — Bartricks

    This may seem like a minor point, but I'd like to clear it up before moving on. Why do we need the word necessarily in here? To me, the implication is that if we were to take out the word "necessarily", then there could be some hypothetical situation in which Barticks Potter did not go to the grocery. Clearly that is not the case. If A = B, then A & B identify the same entity/object, and by the basic rules of logic they must have the same properties.

    I.e, removing the word necessarily does not alter the meaning of the proposition, the word is redundant and unnecessary.

    1. If Bartricks Potter is Superman, then if Superman went to the grocery, Bartricks Potter went to the grocery

    Are you OK with removing necessarily? If not, would you please explain.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks

    Those were some clever insults there - nicely done.

    But seriously, I’m a kumbaya kind of person. When I see a someone assert something that looks obviously wrong, my first impulse is to find common ground and/or to try to re-phrase what that person is trying to say in my own words so as to better explain to that person how they are mistaken. I prefer not to start out by being critical, since that puts the other person into a defensive position and it makes it harder to communicate.

    That said, I can see where my approach could be perceived as being disingenuous. So let me start from the beginning.

    You appear to be making some basic errors in logic, What you are calling P & Q contain hidden variables and operators. BUT I keep an open mind - it is possible that I am mistaken.

    However, if you want to convince me that your logic is sound, we will need to unpack your logic. In order to do this I will be asking you a series of questions - some of which may seem really stupid - but I have to ask them in order to make sure that there is no mis-understanding.

    In asking these questions I will be dealing strictly with the underlying logic. Many other folks out here have pointed out that there are some serious semantic issues with your terms, but I will not deal with those. I will be treating your terms as abstract logical variables - so there should be no need to give any real life examples.

    If you are willing to do this, then my first question is this:

    Going back to your #s 1->3:

    1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable (if P, then Q)
    2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable (not Q)
    3. Therefore moral values are not my values (therefore not P)

    We need to start off with the term “moral values”. For purposes of analyzing your logic, this must be defined as a set of individual moral values; let’s call this set Moral_Values.

    Moral_Values = {mv1, mv2, . . .}

    This implies that there is at least one additional set of values that are not moral; let’s call this Not_Moral_Values (for want of a better term). There is then a third set called Values which is the union of Moral_Values and Not_Moral_Values. If, for your purposes, you need to further sub-divide Not_Moral_Values into, say, Un_Values & Miscellaneous_Values, that’s OK, as long as we agree that every moral value is a member of at least one sub-set and that the set Values is the union of the subsets.

    I’m using italics here so the variables stand out, but if you prefer to use a different nomenclature and/or different names for these sets and variables that’s fine.

    Are we in agreement so far? If not, please clarify. BTW - if you want to continue insulting me? That’s fine too.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks

    I come to this forum to learn new things and to understand how I can integrate philosophical thinking into my life. Most of the people on this forum are far more knowledgeable about philosophy than I - and I have benefited from following and occasionally interacting with them.

    When I first read your OP it seemed incoherent to me, but it looked like there were some interesting ideas in there. I said to myself that maybe I was simply not understanding what you were saying - or perhaps you were not expressing yourself clearly.

    So I have been making a good faith effort to understand what you are saying - in particular I have been trying to get some clarity re how you are defining your terms.

    I have not been trolling you.

    I respectfully suggest that if you cannot communicate your ideas to a reasonably smart person who is making a good faith effort to understand you, then you should re-consider your situation.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks


    There are things that I value. That is a set of things.. Call that set my_Values. I asked you for some examples of things that are in this set. I'm still not clear on exactly what you mean by this, but I believe you gave me one example: "The person I love."

    Next there are things that are morally valuable. That is a set of things. Call that set moral_Values. I asked you for some examples of things that are in this set. I believe you gave me a longer list here:

    you are morally valuable, I am morally valuable, character traits, such as kindness, generosity, honesty- these are morally valuable (usually). Happiness is often morally valuable — Bartricks

    What I am asking you is very simple. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram of these two sets of things, would they be disjoint, would they overlap somewhat (some items are in both sets, some are only in one or the other), or would they be identical?

    Just do be clear, we are only talking about your P from #1.
    1. If moral values are my values, then Q — Bartricks
    We are not talking about Q or #2 or #3.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks


    So if I'm following you, then the way you are defining these, the intersection between the set of things that I value and the set of things that are morally valuable is the null set. Am I getting this correctly?
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Bartricks


    I'm sorry but I'm still not following this. Right now I'm still stuck on your P from #1

    1. If my values are moral values, then . . . . — Bartricks

    I still don't know what this means. If you could give me some specific examples of things that you would consider to be "my values" and things that you would consider "moral values" that would be a big help to my understanding you - it would help me to get a handle on what you're saying.
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    I am not sure I understand your question. None of our values - that is no valuing of ours, no valuing activity that we may be engaged in - are moral values. That's what the argument established. What we sometimes call 'a person's moral values' are just what we think that person takes to be morally valuable. — Bartricks

    So I don't understand you and you don't understand my question. Seems like we are having some trouble communicating :smile:

    Let me try another approach - let's go back to your statement #1, and take just the first part (what you are calling P):

    1. If my values are moral values, then . . . . — Bartricks

    What do you mean when you use the terms my values vs the term moral values? My assumption (which could be wrong) is that both of these terms identify sets of statements / assertions / propositions (which ever term best works for you).

    So - just for example - I could loosely define the set my_Values like this:

    my_Values = {"Ice cream is good", "Murder is wrong", "Chairs without cushions are better than chairs with cushions", etc etc etc}

    Now you just said that none of my values are moral values. So how do we define the set moral_Values?
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    1. If my values are moral values, then if I value eating ice cream then necessarily it is morally valuable for me to eat ice cream. — Bartricks

    Is it possible for me to have some values that are not moral values? I.e., are there different types or categories of values?
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    I'm still not getting this. Let's just stick to #1.

    #1. If I value eating ice cream, then necessarily eating ice cream is morally valuable — Bartricks

    As far as I can tell, this statement ( assertion / proposition / whatever-you-want-to-call-it) is clearly false.

    1. if P then Q
    2. Not Q
    3. Therefore not P     — Bartricks

    #3 is only true iff both #1 & #2 are true. Since #1 is clearly false, we cannot determine the truth value of #3.

    But maybe I'm still missing something. Can you please clarify?
  • The Subjectivity of Moral Values
    ↪Isaac

    That's what I was thinking, but I'd like to hear what @Bartricks has to say. I will keep an open mind on this.
Home » EricH