Why do you call those facts rather than logic?

For example, the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

Or the fact that if A obtains and B obtains, then it's not the case that neither A nor B obtain. — Terrapin Station

You are referring to the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity. Both of these laws are AXIOMS that one must accept before moving forward.

Those are not "objective facts", but are instead, statements that rely upon the axioms they derive from. It seems you may not fully understand how axioms work, but I'll send a link that may be able to help you a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Scroll down to "Alleged impossibility of its proof or denial". Which starts with:

"As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating"

As I stated before, there are no "objective facts" or "truth" in logic or ethics. You seem to be a bit confused here.

Those are not "objective facts" — chatterbears

So, we disagree on this.

I'm not sure how to make sense out of someone thinking that's it's not an objective relation that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, for example.

And posting as if you're going to teach me about something like axioms is patronizing/insulting.

We don't agree on some very core notions--whether moral claims can be true/false in any sense whatsoever, and whether logic/mathematics has any grounding in objective relations. The problem isn't that I'm not familiar with 101-level material.

So, we disagree on this. — Terrapin Station

Did you read anything else I wrote to you? This isn't about a disagreement. You are incorrect in labeling something as an objective fact, when it is not. I'd suggest you read a bit more on axioms and how they relate to principles within logic, math and ethics.

Did you read anything else I wrote to you? This isn't about a disagreement. You are incorrect in labeling something as an objective fact, when it is not. I'd suggest you read a bit more on axioms and how they relate to principles within logic, math and ethics. — chatterbears

You're being ridiculously patronizing. (see that part I added to the above post)

Why do you call those facts rather than logic? — DingoJones

I'm talking about relations that obtain in the extramental world.

You're being ridiculously patronizing. — Terrapin Station

You are perceiving me to be as such, but I have no ill will toward you. I also am not intending to talk down upon you in some patronizing way. It's sometimes hard to perceive someone's tone via text, but I can confirm that it is not my intention. I am genuinely stating that I believe you are incorrect, and I think it is due to you not knowing enough about this subject. You seem to be incorrectly conflating statements that relate to axioms, as objective facts. This is an error, and I've tried to explain it multiple times. Hence why I suggested you to look up more information for yourself.

You are perceiving me to be as such, — chatterbears

You're telling me to look up elementary info on axioms as if I must not be familiar with it, simply because I don't have the same view(s) as you.

I am genuinely stating that I believe you are incorrect, — chatterbears

Obviously if we have different views about what we believe to be factual matters, you're going to think that I'm incorrect and I'm going to think that you're incorrect.

The first move you make from that isn't to assume that I must not be familiar with rudimentary material.

Quote me where I actually have acted in a way that displays a sole purpose of moral superiority. — chatterbears

And we might wonder, what does all your protesting have to do with serving animals? You have a thing you want to do, that's all about you, and I'm getting in the way, so you're upset.

And the reason you haven't gotten criticized for being vegetarian, is because you don't talk about the morality and ethics behind your decision making. I do. That's the difference. — chatterbears

Right, and I don't do the moralizing dance because it's not effective. People don't enjoy being lectured, just like you're not enjoying it right now. Lecturing alienates people and turns them away, just like you're now alienated from me.

Here's how to debunk all this. Start a new thread which is specifically and sincerely about finding the most effective methods of building vegetarianism in particular, and serving animals in general.

Not what you want to do for you, but what actually works.

I might add that serving animals need not have anything at all to do with what other people are doing or not doing. My wife puts both of us to shame in the serving animals department, and she never lectures anybody, because she's too busy doing it to talk about it.

I'm not sure how to make sense out of someone thinking that's it's not an objective relation that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, for example. — Terrapin Station

Because it is not? The law of noncontradiction is an axiom one needs to accept before proceeding into the terrain of logic. Once you accept that axiom, then you can affirm that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That isn't an objective fact, it is a statement about an axiom that was put in place.

We don't agree on some very core notions--whether moral claims can be true/false in any sense whatsoever, and whether logic/mathematics has any grounding in objective relations. The problem isn't that I'm not familiar with 101-level material. — Terrapin Station

The first move you make from that isn't to assume that I must not be familiar with rudimentary material. — Terrapin Station

Could it not be the case that you may know about this 'rudimentary' material, but don't fully understand it? Or maybe you thought you understood it but have some misconception of it that needs to be cleared up?

Still waiting for you to quote me. You told me my sole intent is to display moral superiority. Please quote me talking to someone on here, where it seemed to be my sole intent.

Still waiting for you to quote me. — chatterbears

Still waiting for you to shut up about yourself and shift your focus to serving animals.

I'm talking about relations that obtain in the extramental world. — Terrapin Station

I know, that doesnt answer the question.
The relations you are talking about are logical, the axioms of logic. Why call them facts? Im not asking on behalf of a counter-argument, or Chatterbears. Im just asking because I don’t see the utility.
I understand you are framing arguments so that Chatterbears can understand, I just don’t know why you are framing it with “facts” that are logical axioms. It seems like it would be easier and clearer to just refer to logic. Im assuming that using the term “facts” gets more work done for you in the argument somewhere or somehow, but I do not see how. I understand that they arent mutually exclusive per say, but I do not understand why you are using “facts” and then referring specifically to (to use your vernacular, not sure I would call rules of logic a “fact”) a specific kind of “fact”, logical Axioms. Why not just reference logic?

Still waiting for you to shut up about yourself and shift your focus to serving animals. — Jake

You made the claim that I am more focused with displaying my moral superiority, rather than focusing on the animals. I asked you to back up this claim by providing me with evidence of me doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. You have yet to provide this evidence, and continue to repeat the same thing like a robot. I think discourse between us is finished, as I no longer see a point in responding to you. Next time if you're going to make a claim about someone's character or their intentions, it's probably best to actually back up that claim with something other than your inaccurate opinion.

Terrapin believes he can call axioms 'objective facts' when it comes to logic. But when an axiom is held within ethics, he calls it preference. This is the core issue we had many posts ago, in which I told him he was contradicting himself.

Axioms are not derived from preference in one area, while being 'objective facts' in another area. Axioms are statements that are taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. Do you agree with this? Because Terrapin seems to think axioms can be based on preference (in ethics), as well as objective facts (in logic). When in fact, they are just statements that are self-evidently true and act as a foundation for that specific area of discourse.

Terrapin believes he can call axioms 'objective facts' when it comes to logic. But when an axiom is held within ethics, he calls it preference. This is the core issue we had many posts ago, in which I told him he was contradicting himself. — chatterbears

He isnt contradicting himself, you just cannot recognise it as consistent becuase it is not framed to be consistent with YOUR views and/or axioms. This is the source of the problem you are having communicating in this thread, it is also the reason why people focus on your moralising and self righteousness. How many people will you have to engage with and have them telll you the same thing before you will seriously consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong here? Have you made an earnest effort to actually register everyones points? From your posts, its clear you arent really listening, you already firmly believe you are right and your questions posed are just poorly disguised rhetorical questions designed to establish your own moral authority. They are not designed to understand any other perspective and are not really meant for discussion. Another symptom of this problem is your tendency to try and establish consensus against your opponents, as you just tried to do with me against Terrapin. I don’t know for sure if this stems from a habit of virtue signalling instead of forming real arguments, but I recognise the smell and Im not the only one.
You need to recognise your limitations, because you arent winning any of the arguments you are having and thats why.

Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming. — TheMadFool

Not all civilizations began with farming. Many of the early cultures had animals domesticated before settling down to planting. But plant crops also gave the early civilizations extra food for the breeding of animals.

Are we evolving into vegans? — TheMadFool

Anything is possible, but I serious doubt that after hundreds of thousands evolving into homo sapiens that we will see the results in a matter of 10 or 20 thousand years that civilizations have been growing their own food.

Eating animals in unethical because, as Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential? — TheMadFool

No has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? Sure nowadays you can pop into a store and pick some up, but there were none available as humans developed. They got their complete set of minerals, vitamins, and fats from what ever they could find and eat.

I guess we just don't care. — TheMadFool

If you want to show how much you care, start campaigning for better methods of breeding and butchering the animal we eat. Stop telling people they are immoral because they kill animal, most of them don't, they just enjoy eating them.

I agree that our biological makeup may not allow us to be complete vegans. Isn't this an is-ought fallacy? We eat meat so we should eat meat?

Of course I don't consider things that are necessary to be within the moral domain. Only when we have choices do we consider the moral dimension.

I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue.

What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right?

He isnt contradicting himself, you just cannot recognise it as consistent becuase it is not framed to be consistent with YOUR views and/or axioms. — DingoJones

You entirely missed the point. I wasn't referring to my views or my axioms. I was referring to axioms themselves and how they actually operate. And the rest of your response didn't address anything I asked.

This is the source of the problem you are having communicating in this thread, it is also the reason why people focus on your moralising and self righteousness. How many people will you have to engage with and have them telll you the same thing before you will seriously consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong here? — DingoJones

And what am I exactly "entirely wrong" in?

Have you made an earnest effort to actually register everyones points? From your posts, its clear you arent really listening, you already firmly believe you are right and your questions posed are just poorly disguised rhetorical questions designed to establish your own moral authority. They are not designed to understand any other perspective and are not really meant for discussion. — DingoJones

Can you post an example of me doing this?

Another symptom of this problem is your tendency to try and establish consensus against your opponents, as you just tried to do with me against Terrapin. I don’t know for sure if this stems from a habit of virtue signalling instead of forming real arguments, but I recognise the smell and Im not the only one. — DingoJones

I don't care to establish consensus against anybody, but rather a different perspective from the opposition. You seem to be on the side of Terrapin, but you seem to agree with me on smaller points, such as how axioms actually work. Which is why I posed the question to you, if you agreed with what he was saying, or if you agree with what I was saying. And if you agreed with what I was saying, maybe you could convey it in a way he understands, since I seem to be not getting my point across to him. This has nothing to do with "let's gang up on somebody", but more of creating clarity within a conversation. You, along with others, keep imposing this ill will within my perspective, when it is actually nonexistent. As I said above, can you give an example of me "clearly not listening", in which I am just out to establish my own moral authority. I'll wait for an example, as 'Jake' couldn't provide one, but I hope you can.

I always address people's points, as I have with Terrapins. Even if we come to disagreements or misunderstandings, I still address everything people say. It is rare that I do not quote everything someone says, but it is very common for people to quote a small portion of what I say and don't respond to the rest of my statements.

You need to recognise your limitations, because you arent winning any of the arguments you are having and thats why. — DingoJones

And what exactly are my limitations? And once you lay those out for me, please give me examples of me engaging into these limitations by quoting me in context within this thread.

To reiterate clearly, this is what I want from you, since you are criticizing my methods of discussion/debate.

1. Show me an example of me doing what you claim I am doing.
2. Give me an alternative way of what would be better.

I can see people criticizing me for my methods, without offering actual evidence to show me what they are referring to. And without offering a solution to the problem I am engaging into. So are you criticizing just to criticize? Or do you have actual constructive criticism?

(Btw, this is all irrelevant to my original point to you. Which is, how do you define axioms, and do you think axioms within logic and math are identical to axioms within ethics. Meaning,they are statements that are taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. Also, do you think an axiom can be based on preference in ethics, but not in logic or math?)

Because it is not? The law of noncontradiction is an axiom one needs to accept — chatterbears

Stop there already. This is why we need to keep things simple to start. It's as if you didn't read, or at least didn't understand, what I wrote. I didn't say that the principle of noncontradiction, qua the principle of noncontradiction, is objective.

Here's what I wrote again, with some added emphases in a few spots:

"Logic and mathematics are different in that at their core, they're based on (though not exactly identical to) objective relations. Most of logic and mathematics is an extrapolation of how we think about those objective relations, but objective relations are the initial basis. That's not the case with morality/ethics."

And then as an example I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That is not the same thing as the principle of noncontradiction. For one, relations are particulars, they're not principles. They're also not real or objective abstracts. But it serves as the experiential basis, the basis for how we normally think about relations in general, that winds up in logic as the principle of noncontradiction.

I didn't want to get into a huge tangent about this, which is what we're doing. That's why I avoided it initially.

All you'd have to know is that I don't believe just the same structural-functional things are going on when it comes to logic and mathematics as when it comes to ethics. The reason is that logic and mathematics are more complicated in that regard in the way that they're based on, but not identical to, objective relations. Ethics isn't based on objective relations.

You can disagree with my view there, of course, but disagreeing doesn't imply that I'm not familiar with the same standard material, standard views that you're familiar with. Being familiar with and understanding something does NOT imply agreeing with it.

I know, that doesnt answer the question.
The relations you are talking about are logical, the axioms of logic. Why call them facts? — DingoJones

My comment above should give you more insight into this.

Indeed.
Why can’t you apply the same rule of non-contradiction to ethics to form similar basis? I understand this would not resemble conventional ethics, but it would be operating by an objective standard based on the same rule of non-contradiction you said is objective. (Not the Logic principal, but in the sense of something being and not being at the same time that you mentioned)

You made the claim that I am more focused with displaying my moral superiority, rather than focusing on the animals. I asked you to back up this claim by providing me with evidence of me doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. — chatterbears

This entire thread is an exercise in your positioning yourself as being morally superior on the subject of animals. Pick any of your posts, there's your evidence.

Please note how you continually respond to this challenge over and over again, and have even started an entire new thread on the subject. That's because your focus is on Chatterbears, not on serving animals.

Your focus on Chatterbears is not a moral crime. You're entirely within your rights to sell yourself anyway you wish. I have no complaint with that at all. Your focus on Chatterbears is a lack of clarity, because you seem to sincerely feel that you are focused on serving animals. This is a philosophy forum, our job here is to attempt to remedy lack of clarity as best we can.

Here's how to debunk all of the above. Abandon this thread. Start a new thread which sincerely attempts to investigate what the most effective and efficient ways of serving animals might be. Don't just blindly assume that is moral sermonizing just because that is what Chatterbears likes to do.

If you should discover that you lose interest in the topic if it doesn't involve moral sermonizing, then you will have enhanced your clarity.

If you discover that moral sermonizing is actually not a necessary part of your desire to serve animals, that will enhance your clarity too.

Give me an alternative way of what would be better. — chatterbears

Before we do that, show us that you are actually interested in alternative ways of serving animals. You can do that by starting such an investigation yourself, on our own, without us. Start a new thread. Write some posts which show that you are conducting your own investigation, doing your own homework, trying to find these alternatives no matter what anyone else may do or say.

There are a million alternatives to moralizing. You don't see them yet apparently because you want to moralize.

I just don’t have the patience for this kind of thing. You have been told clearly by like, 5 people. You have been retold by those same people in even greater clarity. All the data as to why you are wrong on multiple fronts has been provided, you just don’t get it. You want quotes that are examples self righteous, so you can argue with them. Self reflect. Look at your own posts, why should I do all the work for you? Ill try to point you in the right direction, but Im done here (again). Terrapin is your guy for the bludgeoning patience required to make you understand.
Ok, so parting attempt to get you to self reflect: look at the way you reacted to peoples reactions to your comparison of yourself to Martin Luthar King jr. Do not think about why you were correct in the comparison, think about why people reacted the way they did (I laughed out loud). Resist your urge to attribute those reactions to the limitations of others and try to attribute them to limitations you yourself might have.

How about a new thread which focuses on animals instead of us? Wipe the slate clean, start over from scratch, bygones be bygones, give it another go?

And then as an example I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That is not the same thing as the principle of noncontradiction — Terrapin Station

What you are referring to is either the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. Either way, those two things are both axioms which do not have some object facts tied to them.

The reason is that logic and mathematics are more complicated in that regard in the way that they're based on, but not identical to, objective relations. Ethics isn't based on objective relations. — Terrapin Station

I could say the same for ethics. That ethics are based on objective relations, since it is an objective fact that sentient beings experience well-being. And it is an objective fact that sentient beings experience pain and pleasure. And it is an objective fact that 99% of sentient beings want to experience pleasure and avoid pain. And based on these 'objective facts', we can put an axiom in place that relates to these facts. And that axiom would be to maximize the rights and well-being of sentient beings.

You can disagree with my view there, of course, but disagreeing doesn't imply that I'm not familiar with the same standard material, standard views that you're familiar with. Being familiar with and understanding something does NOT imply agreeing with it. — Terrapin Station

Sure. I guess we will have to disagree on how core fundamental axioms are reached and adhered to.

This entire thread is an exercise in your positioning yourself as being morally superior on the subject of animals. Pick any of your posts, there's your evidence. — Jake

So my assumption was correct, in the fact that you will not provide an actual example. But instead, you'd rather just throw a blanket statement over your claim to try and validate it.

Please note how you continually respond to this challenge over and over again, and have even started an entire new thread on the subject. That's because your focus is on Chatterbears, not on serving animals. — Jake

And your focus is on making claims without providing evidence for them. I'll make the claim that you are sexist, and when you ask me to provide evidence for it, I'll just tell you to review this entire thread.

Here's how to debunk all of the above. — Jake

Here's how to back up your claims: Provide evidence.

If you should discover that you lose interest in the topic if it doesn't involve moral sermonizing, then you will have enhanced your clarity. — Jake

I will ask Dingo the same question separately, but do you think Earthling Ed is also only interested in moral sermonizing, rather than helping the animals? Majority of his videos are talking to people about how eating animals is wrong and we shouldn't be doing it. His latest "debate" video was him setting up a booth and labeling a sign, "You can't love animals and eat them." - You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/PrKAycD7LRo

If you think I am "bad", in the sense of moral patronizing, then you must think people like Ed are moral monsters who are so into themselves that they need to video tape themselves and upload it to youtube so more people can see how great they are.

Yea, more posts about Chatterbears! Fuck the animals, let them start their own darn thread.