Do you not understand my question, or are you being evasive? This conversation keeps getting off track.

Are you saying that my original question (what does it mean when realists use normative/moral terms?) is loaded?

But that's not equivalent at all. I wouldn't point to the property that a tree has to be considered a tree. I'd just point to the tree. — Isaac

When you say the word ‘tree,’ presumably, what it is that your language is trying to do is to capture and transmit the conceptual information pertaining to the properties of a tree (long trunk made of bark, green leafs, etc) through corresponding signs, which are encoded with the conceptual information, across a medium we call language in order for a recipient to subsequently decode and form a mental image of the shared concept (the tree).

I want to know what terms like ‘good’ ‘bad’ mean to a realist, if not being used in a stance dependent (relative to the desires of an agent or an established standard) construal.

Well, ‘is’ functions as a determiner in your example. Implying ontological status. Very interesting, but I want to understand the meanings of normative/moral terms first.

If you ask "what does 'tree' mean" would you expect an answer other than just to point to a tree and say "It's one of those"? why would you expect the answer to "what does 'moral' mean" to be any different than to point to moral acts and say "it's one of those"? — Isaac

Either it is subjective (mind dependent) or objective (mind independent) like your tree. On a realist construal, moral good and bad are things of the world—they are a thing or property of the world. Again, like your tree. So, yeah, point to the property something has to have to be considered ‘wrong’.

Shoplifting is wrong because it's the sort of thing we use the word 'wrong' for. — Isaac

This is not a tautology?

Im asking what is the meaning (metaethics) of good or bad (right or wrong). You respond with a tautological argument. Look, your believes are:

We use the word ‘wrong’ to describe things like shoplifting.

Shoplifting is wrong.

You answer a tangential question “Why is shoplifting wrong?” (Which is the same as asking “Why do we use the word ‘wrong’ to describe things like shoplifting.”) by answering, essentially, “Because shoplifting is wrong.” It is wrong because it is wrong. Tautology.

Im not justifying norms. Im asking what moral or normative terms mean on a realist construal.

We don't use the word 'wrong' to describe wrong acts. We use the word 'wrong' to describe some acts and not others. You're assuming there's some strict property we're identifying by that use but you've given no reason why you think there is. Why can we not use the word vaguely, or contextually, or without the other person completely understanding what we mean? — Isaac

I just rearranged your statement so to make it clear that it was tautological. That is not my view.

atoms and void? Democritus? Yeah, i don’t understand.

Language? — Isaac

What is it our language is attempting to capture? Whats the referent?

Shoplifting is wrong because it's the sort of thing we use the word 'wrong' for. — Isaac

That answer is a tautology (essentially): Shoplifting is wrong because we use the word ‘wrong’ to describe ‘wrong acts’ and shoplifting is one of those ‘wrong acts.’

I just don’t understand how we can assess the truth value of a sentence when there is a term that we do not understand… The words we use must succeed in transferring our concepts to one another in order for us to continue tracking the conversation.

For example, would you say that the holocaust was bad? If yes, are you saying that it was bad because the things that happened there go against your desires? Or, the desires of those afflicted? Was it bad independent from any desires?

Thats all quite interesting. Im not committing to a particular metaethical view. I only mention normative and moral terms to refer to the terms used in the example sentences. Im not saying that the statements are indeed true, false or meaningless — Im withholding judgment until I actually understand what the realist is referring to, if not a stance-dependent construal as I am.

I am merely asking what you are referring to when you say ‘X is good’ or ‘Y is bad’.

"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme. — Relativist

I don’t understand why you say the classifications are post hoc? I suppose you are saying that I (or someone) waited until after your claim was made to reveal atheistic diversity?? There are various ways in which atheism can be while still retaining its fundamental shape (not theist). When I speak of “form,” I am referring to the way in which a thing is. Since there are various ways a view could be atheistic, it follows that there are multiple forms. I use the term “system” as in a collection of interrelated parts which together make up the whole of a thing. A “belief system” is simply a collection of many beliefs that are held particularly by a person, or more generally by an ideology. It is from this concept, and the specificities thereof, that diversity emerges from amongst atheistic beliefs.

An example of two very clearly divergent, though very clearly still atheistic beliefs include the division between “strong” and “weak” atheism. In its weak form, atheism is more a psychological state lacking a belief in God, likewise neither committing to the disbelief (perhaps it’s meaningless). The strong form of atheism are those which lack a belief in God, and furthermore deny the proposition “At least one God exists” is true. Strong atheism however also affirms the truth of the negating proposition “At least one God exists is false” (in other words, a psychological state which HAS a belief—not just lacking one—and that belief is that NO God exists). You see, atheism must be defined in relation with theism. Theism holds a belief that there exists at least one God, whereas with atheism it is necessary only to lack that belief and isn’t necessary to hold position at all. I think this makes sense given that i find definitions of God either meaningless or to entail a contradiction (to define something is to describe how it is distinct from everything else, though some definitions of God seem to be describing both a distinct and interdependent part of the world).

Thats what I thought you meant. If we are, by definition, unable to verify a thing (empirically im assuming), then how can we justify believing that it exists? Are we speaking of some platonic existence?

There is one form of atheism, not "forms". — whollyrolling

You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism.

What are intangibles? Could you define your term?

If I do so, this debate ends because it would means we reached an agreement in our controversial discussion — javi2541997

That is the aim, my friend. The holy grail of argument.

Law is objective because it tends to rule all the possible circumstances and actions of the citizens on the state. It doesn’t matter (most of the cases) what was the purpose or thoughts of the citizen not respecting the law.
You cannot plead ignorance for not understanding or knowing the law… this is why is objective.
And yes I am agree that is not necessarily related to ethics — javi2541997

Law is objective in its application in accordance with its own vague and arbitrary boundaries. It is not an objective thing of the world. If humans were whipped out and our artifacts underwent total subatomic decay back into their original cosmic states, then would law exist? If not, then how is it objective? It is dependent upon the transmission of information from the emergence of intelligent life on our planet.

(I know this sounds again so general and there would be someone who wouldn’t care at all. I don’t know what say in this context. Good for him or her) — javi2541997

How about saying the act may or may not lead to regret with everyone, and that it is unfounded to argue that it is immoral for everyone since we are basing our judgments on regrets. Why not just be like me and say that you don’t know one way or another and instead try to work out probabilities one way or another while admitting that each have probability? I think i said 99 percent just given the mathematical unlikelihood that all 7 billion of us share the same take on such things. Some may think its a good thing, and some very likely (it would be like 0.000001 percent probability that all of us do not) just do not care about it.

how can we know if they will regret it or not in the future? — javi2541997

We can’t, it seems. That is why I don’t pretend to know that I do in my arguments. I don’t know either way. And I don’t think you do either. I think you should withhold from committing to a belief one way or another until you can confidently answer the this very question.

whether you like it or not, we as members are treated by general terms. You believe that there could be some teenagers with maturity enough to take and understand their own responsibilities and it is unfair being treated as a whole just to being in a specific set. — javi2541997

What do you mean by treated by general terms? We have many similarities but we all have many differences, too. We cannot completely know one another so we categorize specific behaviors (with much unavoidable error) as we experience one another and become familiar with common patterns. On a societal basis, we lack the resources to measure each persons unique behavior traits so we arbitrarily measure behavior patterns most common to specific groups (proper subsets) such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc, because of common trends in behavior that are disproportionate to other subsets, or to the whole set itself. Age is a group with an especially prevalent amount of behavior patterns which differ from the grey area of social norms and expectations. This is because the group of individuals who make up the subset of people known as “youth” share a critically important quality— age, and lack thereof, has a strong correlation with lived experience. The system isn’t perfect and expecting it to be, or thinking it possible, is a sign of philosophical naivety. Not directing that towards you per se but it seems to be annoyingly prevalent among the general public.

In response to some teenagers being responsible enough for particular activities but unfairly being generalized according to the common behaviors of their group (of which I never expressed any values such as fairness or unfairness to—those were examples, not my opinions), I would just say that we are not perfect, and therefore have not constructed a perfect system. Since the system is not perfect, there will be errors in the judgment and the execution of how we regulate the system. Knowing this, it is simply pointing out the obvious and expected. It is to imply that the system should be perfect when that simply isn’t possible by virtue of being entirely constructed by human beings.

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. Saying that you don’t know if there is a God because you have seen no legitimate evidence or heard arguments which are sound, or at least strong and cogent, is not an argument. If you ask me if i believe aliens exist, then i could answer with a “yes” (to affirm their existence), or a “no” (to deny their existence which is to affirm their non-existence), or furthermore with an “I don’t know” (to nether affirm nor deny. The first option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to
justify the truth of the statement “There is a God” or be dismissed. The second option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to justify the truth of the statement “There is no God”. The third option however has no burden of proof, nor requires an argument because they are making a statement regarding their own beliefs (they are saying they hold no belief) of which only they have access to their own thoughts and ideas.

Just wanted to clarify that. Also, what do you mean by a non belief in something never shown to be intangible in-itself? Im not sure how you are defining “tangible” here, but tangible or intangible, it nevertheless must be shown.

They are both objective and subjective. We make objective laws trying to reinforce the ethical behaviour in a society. Nevertheless, it is also upon the subjectivity of each person on applying and respecting such laws — javi2541997

Law and ethics tend to correspond but they are two different things. It would be wrong for me to call you an idiot, but not illegal. legality only comes into effect when a majority of a population agree that something is wrong and subsequently legislate against it. How is law objective? Law is arbitrary and constantly changing in correspondence with our ethics (of which only a majority agree). For something to be objective it wouldn’t be affected by our opinions or feelings. Laws are objective with regard to which ones currently stand within the realm of the legislative system, but we were discussing ethics not law.

If you say I should not treat (in general terms) the youth with such limitations. Should you be able to make an enterprise or agreements with them? In this examples we can see if they are mature enough. — javi2541997

This is a separate issue. I never said we shouldn’t treat the youth with limitations. I simply said that they have them. I made a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive one. If you wish to discuss this new topic, that is fine. I only ask that we conclude with the original issue regarding sets and subsets. If some people have regrets about showing their bodies on the internet, does that then mean all people have regrets? Converging on this issue (or disproving my position on it) is necessary for me to maintain interest and move on to a separate topic. I just don’t like not getting to the bottom of things.

I understand that using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions? For example: alcohol, tobacco, drive licence, getting married, etc... all of those example are sent to general citizens with a specific age (thus, teenagers). — javi2541997

That logic doesn’t follow. You capitulated my earlier point here:

The error here is in your terms. In premise 1: “Showing our bodies” (“our” is general, it implies us (people) as a whole set). Then in premise 2: “The youngest do not see the consequences of the future” (“youngest” is a proper subset of people as a general whole). This means that the two premises do not follow from one another (they are invalid). What has to do with the youngest subset of people is not the same as what happens to all people. If the argument is invalid then it doesn’t matter if the premises are true or not. No inference can be made between the two. Its like arguing that all fruit is red because there are red apples. Apples are a proper subset of fruit. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

However, you yet again attempt to draw a fallacious inference: “…using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions?”. Either you are making a non related point (which is irrelevant) to my argument, of which, to be clear, was that the truth of a whole set (e.g. people or fruit) can not be limited to the truth of a particular subset (e.g. young people or apples). We can’t say that fruit grows on trees just because apples do. Likewise, we can’t say that people are restricted from the consumption of alcohol and tobacco just because young people are. The restrictions which I was referencing was the fact that whole sets are generalized with respect to varying characteristics of which its subsets may or may not be limited to. The fact that young people have more restrictions than of people in general (since it includes those legally restricted and those without restrictions) illustrates the truth of my point, not yours. Just because all of a particular subset includes a characteristic, doesn’t mean all of the set as a whole does. All young people are restricted from alcohol and tobacco, whereas with people in general, only some of them have such restrictions (young people or mentally disabled or incarcerated…etc). You are figuring it backwards. A whole set includes every characteristic of each of its proper subsets. A subset includes only some of the characteristics of the whole set. So we can reason that some people have restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, because young people do. We can’t say that All people have such restrictions because young people do. Just like how we can say that some fruit grows on trees since apples grow on trees, and not that all fruit grows on trees because apples do. Like these examples, I reasoned that just because some (not all) people regret showing their bodies on the internet, doesn’t mean that all people have such regrets. Since your argument was that showing your body on the internet is immoral because some people later regret it, it therefore means that said characteristic (regret) is only universally true of a particular subset
and partially true of the set as a whole.

That young people have restrictions is consistent with my view. It certainly doesn’t mean that all members of a whole set must share a characteristic of the members of its subset. That was my point.

It boils down to the issue of whether or not ethical values are objective or subjective, are real or constructed, and even if they can even be true or false in any meaningful sense at all. Check into ethical realism / anti-realism, cognitivism /non-cognitivism, etc… I won’t burden you with my biases, but just point you in the direction of the main issues.

Don’t feel defeated or anything. We (as people) have been grappling with similar issues for thousands of years. Its just not there yet. Alhough, by learning the flaws in our reasoning we are already making progress. You get used to being wrong about everything all the time. I at least have come to accept that. We are fallible. We just have to work through it or give up on philosophy.

How does that argument lead you to the conclusion that “Showing your body on the Internet is unethical”? That is a general statement again but you are reasoning about a small subset of people and not just people in general which is what the statement (the conclusion) is saying.

I think i figured out the issue. Think about the words you are using. Your argument comes accross in absolute terms. You likely would be just as happy saying that some people have come to regret (or there are many who regret) showing their body on the internet. Therefore, for those individuals, showing their body on the internet was unethical. You just have to back off the strong and absolute statements. Some things are logically impossible like square circles, but a single individual free of any regret from showing their body on the internet (which is literally all it takes to break your argument) just are not impossible (or they are beyond yours and my own abilities to understand or reason). Though it may be true and I may be dead wrong, going through the arguments seem to point to my view being correct. So until I hear a convincing argument otherwise, I will have to maintain my position.

My position is that for some people it is possible that the act causes no regrets. With such possibility, I can not use such information honestly to arrive at the conclusion that the act is wrong for everyone always, and thus will maintain doubt that such is the case. Im not saying that it isn’t either, but that there is no evidence or good reasoning available to justify believing that it is. I think it’s about 99 percent in favor of it not being the case when considering just the mathematical likelihood within an incredibly diverse pool of billions of people that at least one has no regrets. To be honest, I found the claim rather extraordinary and still do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ans so far nothing I have heard comes close.

Premise 1: Show our bodies in internet is unethical and it provokes some consequences.
Premise 2: The youngest do not see the consequences of the future so, they show their bodies on internet.
Conclusion: Youth tend to be ignorant showing so much data about them and whenever they want to care it is too late to do so — javi2541997

The error here is in your terms. In premise 1: “Showing our bodies” (“our” is general, it implies us (people) as a whole set). Then in premise 2: “The youngest do not see the consequences of the future” (“youngest” is a proper subset of people as a general whole). This means that the two premises do not follow from one another (they are invalid). What has to do with the youngest subset of people is not the same as what happens to all people. If the argument is invalid then it doesn’t matter if the premises are true or not. No inference can be made between the two. Its like arguing that all fruit is red because there are red apples. Apples are a proper subset of fruit.

By the way, premise 1 is actually your conclusion. Though worded differently with both deductive language (Showing our bodies on the internet is unethical) and inductive language (it provokes some consequences), which make up two separate claims — not that I can’t work with that but we a ways away yet. The conclusion I am struggling with a bit. im going to try to re write your argument and just let me know when I got it right, ok?

P1) Youth show their bodies on the internet.

P2) Youth are ignorant to the consequences of showing their bodies on the internet.

P3) Youth, in their ignorance, later in their lives regret showing their bodies on the internet.

C) therefore, showing our bodies on the internet is unethical.

This is just cleaned up. I could condense it further or omit some unnecessary information. Something like this:

P1) If people regret showing their bodies on the internet when they were young, then people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.

P2) People regret showing their bodies on the internet.

C) Therefore, people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.

This one is valid. However, i need the argument demonstrating that all people regret showing their bodies on the internet. As you need that in order to arrive at “…is unethical” since “most” or “many” would have to be also in the conclusion “…is mostly unethical” or “…for many is unethical” which are much weaker statements (“weak” not used as a pejorative here, but rather to imply intellectual honesty). Is that the conclusion or would you like to change it?

I think showing our body through internet is bad from an ethical point of view — javi2541997

I understand. We have been discussing the ethics of showing our body on the internet this whole time. I have been trying to request from you the argument supporting your claim. Its like the example argument i gave you supporting the claim “I am alive”. A claim requires a supporting argument (additional statements) in order to be convincing. I can give you an example argument that would support your claim, but I cannot give you one which is [1] “valid” and [2] “sound” ([1] ”a conclusion which follows logically from the premises” and “containing all true premises”) because that is precisely what im trying to hear from you. Anyway, just to give you an idea, or at least better clarify what im looking for, here is one example (and subsequently my refutation of it).

First, the argument in common language: Showing our bodies through the internet is bad (this is the main or concluding statement of your argument) because you will be exploited by others (this is a supporting statement or premise). Now, the argument in formal language: (p1) If showing our bodies on the internet will result in our exploitation, then showing our bodies on the internet is bad; (p2) showing our bodies on the internet will result in our exploitation; (c) therefore showing our bodies on the internet is bad.

This is a [1] modus ponens [2] syllogism ([1] an argument structure which uses a conditional statement (e.g. if the stove is 450 degrees, then touching it will burn your skin) to bridge the inference between the conclusion (main claim) and the premise (supporting claim). It then asserts the truth of the premise (touching a 450 degree stove will burn your skin), from which (as long as the premise is accepted) the conclusion must follow). ([2] an argument in three parts (using three statements): conclusion, premise and inference). The example argument is valid because each of the statements follow logically from one another (assuming all the statements are true). However, it is not sound because the statement of the premise (showing our body on the internet
results in exploitation) is demonstrably false.

My refutation demonstrates a proof by contradiction (to say something is both true and false). This is a deductive argument (meaning the statements are absolute and the inference necessary or without exception), and as such, the statement of the premise (showing our body on the internet results in exploitation) is to say: “In absolutely every case where a person exposes themselves on the internet they have been exploited, as it is impossible to do so otherwise”. Kind of like a square having four corners: If you are a square you have four corners. We cannot imagine a square with anything other than four sides, which means it isn’t logically possible (logical impossibility means to say so derives a contradiction).

We cannot imagine a square with anything other than four sides, so to say a square exists with three sides is to say a square both has and does not have four sides (3 is not 4). Now, the premise says “showing our body on the internet results in exploitation” in the same way. In this cases, however, I can imagine a scenario where someone could show their body without exploitation (“exploitation” here being defined as “the mistreatment of a person for ones own self benefit”). The key is “mistreatment” because if a person doesn’t feel like they are being treated unfairly, or moreover, feels satisfied and well treated, and since ones own treatment or mistreatment depends on ones own feelings (which are private and acceptable only to them), then we only need one case wherein the individual performed the act of showing themselves on the internet, and then, based on their own feelings (that we have no access to), expressed no feelings of mistreatment, and furthermore never retracted the statement at a later time, would be all that we needed to derive a contradiction.

To summarize, if we are making deductive claims by using absolute terms and expressions, it is necessary to demonstrate that anything otherwise is impossible (squares with sides other than four), that is logically impossible because it is cognitively impossible to imagine. All it takes is an imagined scenario that cant be ruled out of the realm of possibility. Squares with more or lass than four sides —impossible. Someone who showed their body on the internet without feeling exploited, then and thereafter —possible.

When I put youth in the previous text, It wasn't a premise but just an example of what I do consider as ignorant. — javi2541997

What I mean by premise is a statement that gives a reason for believing a conclusion. I was originally curious about your initial statement (which was a conclusion in terms of argument) that it is bad to expose our bodies on the internet (or more precisely, that a girl showing her body on the internet is a bad thing). That is a statement which can be either true or false and it was where your reasonings have lead you. I was interested in why you believe that statement was true. A supporting statement which if true justify your belief. You responded with an example of how it could be bad but that wasn’t what I was trying to figure out. For example, if I say “I am alive” i am making a statement which could either be true or false. Most of the time we don’t bother to provide reasons for such a belief and just accept it or take it for granted, but in the case of your belief that bodily exposure on the internet is wrong I can’t take for granted as i cant reason why such would be the case. So if the same were true about my statement “I am alive” and reasons were requested, then i would provide a supporting statement likewise capable for truth or falsity, such as “I contain specialized, coordinated parts; I am metabolizing various interlocking chemical reactions; I undergo homeostasis; growth; reproduction; and respond to stimuli” and those would be my reasons and likewise my premises. So the argument would look like such (in logic):

Premise 1) If a thing has many specialized, coordinated parts, a metabolism, is homeostatic, undergoes growth, can reproduce, and is responsive to stimuli, then that thing is alive.

Premise 2) I have many specialized, coordinated parts, a metabolism, am homeostatic, undergo growth, can reproduce, and am responsive to stimuli.

Conclusion) Therefore, I am alive.

I hope this clarifies our misunderstandings and please don’t feel obligated to provide your reasons. I just try to explore the ideas of others when i can and see what I can learn.

I meant no offense and do not think your arguments were simplistic. What i wanted to do was explore your opinions because opinions are beliefs and I wondered why you held a belief that i don’t. It could very well be that i am wrong and there are good arguments for that view but i will never be exposed to them if i don’t investigate and look for them. You don’t have to be technical or well spoken in the language of philosophy and logic to point out something I may have missed. My four-year-old does it constantly. I was only trying to aid you in articulating your thoughts and expressing your ideas in ways more common to philosophy—not because you are simple or wrong but because such ways are the only ones that I understand. Its my conditioning to a philosophical framework which I require in order to develop any concept of which you speak. Your thoughts are what im interested in and you can express them any way you like but i need to translate your language into philosophical concepts in order to form any idea or understanding of your thoughts.

It is likely that i interpreted you as if you were using a strict precision of language when in truth you were speaking casually. Which is fine. Neither is better than the other. You said in your latest response that

that Internet could be a dangerous place.

which is much more reasonable and practically expresses your original meaning well enough for you until I pedanticized it by over analyzing speech which was not intended to be a dialectic but rather to make practical sense of the topic.

I have only read the first paragraph of your response and felt compelled to reveal my actual intentions and better communicate in a way which is not so easily interpreted as coming across so negatively. I apologize for my neglect. I just try to communicate with as little words as possible as you can see i am prone to lengthy comments nonetheless. I just want to clarify that for you before I read your entire response.

I don’t think those arguments are valid. The issue is whether or not the act of exposing oneself on the internet is intrinsically wrong or immoral. Whether the act itself is wrong Irregardless of the consequences or end result. I interpreted you to be making a claim, namely, that exposing our bodies on the internet is wrong/bad. This implies that every such act is wrong simpliciter, with no conditions or exceptions. I see many obvious ways it could result in bad ways but your claim seemed to go beyond that. Maybe if i put it in argument form it will help.

I’ll attempt to represent you as best i can in logical notation.

Starting with your conclusion:

C) The act of exposing your body on the internet is immoral (as in all cases).

Now, I requested the premises from which you drew this inference from. This is what you gave me so far:

P1) If you are young, then you don’t understand what the act of exposing yourself on the internet results in.

The reason it isn’t valid is because the truth of the conclusion doesn’t follow from the truth we assume in the premise. If the act is wrong simpliciter, then it must include those of us who are not young and not ignorant of the consequences — which is another issue, the argument introduces consequentialist terms in the premise to infer a deontological claim. If the act is wrong always, then the consequences are irrelevant. See this is the problem im having. I think a possible world exists wherein such an act can be done without any negative consequences, and such an existence means it is logically possible, thus there is no contradiction derived and a contradiction is necessary for your proof. The act of exposing yourself can’t always be wrong and also sometimes (in a possible world) not wrong. Therefore it can only be one or the other and it seems as if you are arguing from the position that it is always wrong. In order to establish a proof you would have to derive a contradiction from the claim that “it is logically possible to expose yourself on the internet and cause no harm” or present what properties within the act itself constitutes it as always morally wrong. The latter commits us to take absurd positions entailed within the logic (e.g. A possible world wherein the act is realized and results in an infinite utility gain — be it predicated upon units of happiness or pleasure or avoidance of suffering), because if you say it is ALWAYS wrong them I can introduce a possible scenario in which the good gained is infinite and since you are committed to the view that it is always wrong you then are committed to say that the act was wrong no matter the result. I think such a position would be absurd to hold and find the argument unacceptable as a result. We can even make it further absurd by considering a possible world where you are offered a choice: a) commit the act resulting in avoiding infinite suffering and death to occur within the universe or, b) refuse to commit the act resulting in infinite suffering and death to occur within the universe. In this scenario, on your view, you would have to say the person performing the act did a bad thing in order to retain a logically consistent position (to avoid a contradiction).

Sorry if this is too technical. I’ll conclude with a counter argument to my interpretation of your position:

P1) If the act of exposing yourself on the internet is wrong (simpliciter), then there can be no logically possible scenario (one that commits no contradiction) where the act is good.

P2) There is at least one logically possible scenario in which the act is good.

C) Therefore, the act of exposing yourself on the internet cannot be wrong (simpliciter).

I think that makes sense. Sort of like the mereology between an object and the arrangement of its constituent parts (at what point does an accumulation of water droplets become a puddle, pond, or sea?). I hold the view that aesthetics is best defined subjectively. I define “subjective” as something which is dependent upon a mind to (conceptually) exist. It is true that a mind likely depends on objective things for concrete conceptions to abstract into such things as aesthetics, but once abstracted such things are no longer dependent on objectivity. Like loosing ones sight (objective) though nonetheless retaining mental representations of visual information. They are based, perhaps dependent, upon objective information in their manifestation, but what makes the difference is that subjective information has the capacity to continue in its absence of objective information.

I see. I suppose im more focused on the initial topic. Fake news and hate speech are troubling, to be sure, but they are separate issues. The internet is essentially a super system for transmitting information — a “tool” as you said. It isn’t the source of such things, rather it is an amplifier of a purely human manifestation. Regarding your epistemic point, we seem to have functional knowledge about the internet, but i would agree (as a ubiquitous feature of our epistemology) we are largely ignorant of it in its totality. Im not sure if I would agree with your statement that

most [of the] people do not know how to use. — javi2541997

. Im not saying its false either but rather I would just need to see evidence before accepting your premise. This also depends upon what exactly you mean by “know”.

Cyber bullying, sexual exploitation, and twitters political agenda are genuine issues but alas separate ones from the one I was addressing. It’s easy to trail of topic with such interesting points raised and I just want to clarify that we agree with my original argument and it seems as if we have.

Just out of interest, setting the aesthetics of the internet aside, you seem to be making the argument that the act of sharing our bodies virtually is immoral or bad. Im unsure and thus withhold judgment either way, so maybe you could share with me your reasonings which brought you to that conclusion… Im aware of many negative examples resulting from such behavior but i find those to be judged independently based on consequentialist arguments. I fear I am ignorant to any sound deontological arguments inferring wrongness or immortality to the act itself. If you wish to fully digress from the topic of internet aesthetics, then perhaps we can address the issue of whether or not the act of sexual exposure is intrinsically immoral.

Im curious. Isn’t the internet a system of networks linking various forms of information between us? Is there not a wide variety of possible information which can effect us in different ways? Doesn’t information produce a diverse spectrum of possible influences and scale the full range of possible aesthetic experiences and judgments? It contains essentially the culmination of our information. Information can be have a positive aesthetic value (receiving praise from friends and family) as well as its negative counterpart (learning that your pet died). Are you making an aesthetic judgment regarding the internet based on the seeming prevalence of negativity within your own personal experiences? Surely it has the capacity for both, wouldn’t you say?

What do you mean by “beautiful”? I would define the term as “The properties of a stimulus event which evoke sensory and perceptual experiences that are in accordance with the preferences of the subject”.

I don’t think such properties are found within the parts of the stimulus event itself but rather they are found between the interface of the stimulus and the physiological / psychological response produced by particular arrangements of the sensory / perceptual systems of the subject. Take taste for instance, your particular preferences aren’t within the food itself, but within the response evoked between your developing taste sensory systems and the chemical composition of the food itself. Your sense of taste adapts to the taste stimuli that it is exposed to regularly within the environment. You will acquire taste preferences for a food in correspondence with the stimulus event evoked by the foods exposure to your taste sensory systems.

Another issue is the sheer generality of measuring the internet as a whole with such powerful capacities and wide ranging utilities. I mean, it can literally be used for just about anything regarding the transmission of information. Its analogous to questioning whether or not INFORMATION is beautiful. It encompasses the whole spectrum of possible aesthetic experience and judgment. Aesthetics is not restricted to the natural world but rather it extends to the artificial world as well — to all possible experiences both physical and virtual.

In considering all of this, the best answer I can offer is that it seems to have the capacity for beauty and of ugliness as well.

existential vs. universal quantification. — TheMadFool

Let me see if I’m understanding you… If I make such statements as ‘There is a universe,’ or ‘The universe exists,’ what I’m doing is making a positive claim (describing the way things are) by predicating a property to an object (the object being the ‘universe’ and the property being predicated upon it being ‘existence’), which requires the logical notation of an existential quantifier. But, it seems your telling me otherwise with regards to these statements negations? ‘There is not a universe,’ or ‘The universe does not exists,’ would just be the same with the exception of the negation sign. Universe is pretty much the best comparison for what most predicate upon God (besides transcendence possibly but we can’t yet generalize a metaphysical difference beyond logical possibilities)

I need a keyboard for notation. So I’ll not attempt a sloppy one.

I am the novice. I know much of what I say must surely be riddled with flaws, and I am incapable (as are you and everyone else) of being perfectly accurate. You have taken the time to show me some of those flaws before and for that I respect you. Whether you did so for reasons other than helping me or not, It doesn’t matter because I too am (if you indeed are) motivated by selfish reasons.