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.

Of course you clarified me your misunderstandings. I understood you since the beginning when we started debating each other. You tried to give another vision of internet issues and affairs.

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)

Well, I think showing our body through internet is bad from an ethical point of view. Sometimes it looks like some apps act as a marketplace. When you are Young you would not probably care at all because you are to peppy to see the danger. But whenever you become an adult you would see it with different eyes and regret your past actions. Nevertheless, it is late (according to internet times) because your data is flowing around over there...
Then, to clarify my argument:

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

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.

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?

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. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Those premises are clearly better than mines. I just did my best to put some arguments of why I was seeing (and I still see) unethical show the bodies or so much data around the internet.
Whatever how we are debating I guess we are getting to the same point here: showing our body is unethical.
Nevertheless, I see you are complaining that my premise of "Youth" is not good enough because is a very general term and I was not very concise. Let me try it again:

P1) Teenagers which ages are between 14 and 18 tend to show their bodies through internet without responsibility being unethical in their actions.

P2) Then, due to their lack of consideration they commit actions that, furthermore of being unethical, would regret in the future because they are innocent right now.

Conclusion: Therefore, showing bodies by Teenagers between 14 and 18 years old are both unethical and dangerous to them.

Is that the conclusion or would you like to change it? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes I would like to change it.
I gave another try trying to be more specific in the comment of above.

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.

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.

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.

I see it is difficult to convince you about my arguments. But this is why this forum is interesting and what philosophy stands for.
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).
According to the restrictions we put on young people we can say that the reason is their lack of "maturity". For this reason, I personally think that we should connect it with other examples or real life issues as the use of internet. I still think it could be a problem to them doesn't matter the circumstances or arguments because the law and the State as public orders should protect the citizens in a weak position.
Whenever a young boy or girl shows so much data of him/her than needed it is causing a big problem that authorities should take part of.
Furthermore, if it is unethical or not as we both are debating, I guess it even breaks the law in some countries.

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.

Check into ethical realism / anti-realism, cognitivism /non-cognitivism, etc… — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I will do so. Thanks for the recommendation :up:

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. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

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

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.

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.

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.

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. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes, I understood your point. But 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.
Well this issue happens for practical purposes. Most of the teenagers (I put them as an example because they are what we are debating about) share some similar circumstances or characteristics of “ adolescence” as well as: A period of Rapid Physical/Biological Changes, has Psychological Repercussions Too, Career-Consciousness, Emotional Conditions, Flight on Imagination, Hobbies and Other Details. These are the facts which defines a teenager as an overall and this is why we put general basic rules on them

If some people have regrets about showing their bodies on the internet, does that then mean all people have regrets? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I still defend my point of view. It is true that probably not all teenagers would regret show their bodies. But let’s be honest… how can we know if they will regret it or not in the future? This is why I cared about the issue in my arguments of previous comments. A teenager doesn’t care about their circumstances, doesn’t see the effect and cause of their actions and it is not responsible enough.
Maybe they are not regretting showing their body right now but how can we know what would happen in the next 5 years?
There are a big number of people that when they become more older they delete their social media and then they ask if it is possible to erase all their data… conclusion, they end up regretting their past actions as teenagers.
(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)

How is law objective? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

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

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.

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.

(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.

And I don’t think you do either. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It is true that I do not know it neither. But this is exactly the case I was looking for. Trying to protect (or at least guaranteed) the uncertainty of what the future holds. We both do not know what is the mind of teenager (well, we experienced it but we are in other businesses now) and then, for this reason, we have to take part in the issue and make basic rules to protect them. Probably everything ends up without any problem at all... but who knows? So in this issue we need something to put them on a safe context in the future.
This is like an insurance. Probably you would never experienced something tragic as a fire, but you sign an agreement with the company for whatever could occur in the future.

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? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

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

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.

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.

That is the aim, my friend — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We can finish here then. You put on the table very good arguments to consider about. Thanks for debating with me in this thread. See you in the future in other thread/topic related to our uncertainties and concerns :up:

How would we define beauty?

I wuz hoping for a mathematical answer - the cables that route the signals between computers & servers are, to my reckoning, haphazardly laid down i.e. they aren't exactly what one would consider pleasing to the eye.

However, if you focus on the web's structure/architecture you might uncover a hidden order that, to some, would be the Megan Fox of networks.

Let's work with that for the moment!