– for what?existence is good — Philosophim
This statement doesn't make sense (i.e. is a category mistake) because "existence" in not an action or practice and therefore cannot be prescribed."There should be existence"
existence is good
— Philosophim
– for what? — 180 Proof
"There should be existence"
This statement doesn't make sense (i.e. is a category mistake) because "existence" in not an action or practice and therefore cannot be prescribed. — 180 Proof
Why?If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. — Philosophim
If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing.
— Philosophim
Why?
Because existence already is, we're in it, and we want it going?
But by what standard is an "is" a "should be"? — Vera Mont
Existence can be an action ...
— Philosophim
Explain. — 180 Proof
b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No". — Philosophim
Finding an objective morality? We dont start with an objective morality because we must determine them/an. How about we first moralize objectively....? That is almost surely possible, to what degree? It depends.Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make. — Philosophim
Finding the fundamentals of morality to build a general understanding of morality. Are those examples then compared to the basis built from the fundamental findings or other understandings and examples? The how and TO WHAT we compare a general understanding of morality to is important for objective moralizing, I believe.It is about finding the fundamentals of morality, then working up to examples of generally understood morality. — Philosophim
If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.
f. But if it exists,then according to itself, it shouldn't exist. — Philosophim
Should there be? THERE IS!b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No". — Philosophim
thats right, it is not a real question...if it is, i would like to observe that convo in real time being had between an asker (out of curiosity, lack of better words/understanding/clarification for self -NOT- if asker is only asking, not because they care about the actual answer from the giver (true or not), but for their own reasons/needs. If the ask is done indirectly for other intel (without knowledge of observations being had, of course) then I believe within that ask, is an observer seeking something other than "the answer" but "thee answer" that works and can be accepted to proceed with discussing for them....if this is an actual question, no judgement, I genuinely want to know WHO is ASKING WHO or WHAT and WHAT they get from the answer and how to carry on from there...do they want to just "ask" to bring up discussion that can incorporate their ideas further surrounding the topic? Probably, most likely...AND thats fine with me, people have to bounce ideas around for feedback, I totally get that but when/if it is other than that, its pretty bleak. I am not sure if the will exists in me to even want to try and wrap my head around what is or might be going on wherever that question takes/lands us...if its an actual real question, that is! I find it SUS!b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No". — Philosophim
Why would moral theories be required to answer this question? I think most moral theories simply do not answer the question at all. — Leontiskos
Why would moral theories be required to answer this question? I think most moral theories simply do not answer the question at all. — Leontiskos
This apple on a tree at exactly 1.23 seconds after existence is an apple.
— Philosophim
I do not understand this sentence. Also, "existence" =/= "existing" (i.e. ground =/= grounding). — 180 Proof
.if this is an actual question, no judgement, I genuinely want to know WHO is ASKING WHO or WHAT and WHAT they get from the answer and how to carry on from there — Kizzy
I totally get that but when/if it is other than that, its pretty bleak. — Kizzy
How about we first moralize objectively....? — Kizzy
Finding the fundamentals of morality to build a general understanding of morality. Are those examples then compared to the basis built from the fundamental findings or other understandings and examples? — Kizzy
NOT ACCORDING TO ITSELF, IT SHOULDNT EXIST. OBJECTIVITY ISNT EXISTING, WE ARE AND WHAT WE DECIDE IS OBJECTIVE, IS. — Kizzy
I think there is good reason for the making of this post. I applaud your work, Philosophim and also Bob's, in the specific area of "morality" you both frequently discuss on the forum . You two are dedicated, thorough, and well spoken! — Kizzy
LITERALLY NO ONE: "SHOULD THERE BE EXISTENCE"
My inner voice: "nO"
EXISTENCE: "TOO BAD." — Kizzy
Maybe if I truly believed it, when I allowed my mind and inner voice to go there (answering "nO" to question B of the argument) I would have more justification or explanation and I WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN IT, except...I cant, because I think and believe there SHOULD be existence. — Kizzy
The good and the bad are how we can be moral agents — Kizzy
a. Assume that there is an objective morality. — Philosophim
You can't assume anything unless you already exist. — Vera Mont
That was the burden of my comment.No disagreement there, but how does that effect the discussion in any way? This seems irrelevant. — Philosophim
How is there a "discussion" without the given that preexists any possible question of "shoulds" ?1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim
How is there a "discussion" without the given that preexists any possible question of "shoulds" ? — Vera Mont
Where "should not" isn't an option, there no alternatives; therefore the question is meaningless and pointless.I'm not sure I follow. "Should" is a question of whether a state should be. — Philosophim
Where "should not" isn't an option, the question is meaningless and pointless. — Vera Mont
Not about outcome. About precondition for question. Question chases own tail. Therefore question silly. — Vera Mont
Therefore question silly. — Vera Mont
Why would moral theories be required to answer this question? I think most moral theories simply do not answer the question at all. — Leontiskos
But why are they required to? If they are objective, they need to answer that question because it is the question that underlies all moral questions. — Philosophim
How can you claim how one should exist before you can claim that they should exist at all? — Philosophim
I see little evidence for such a claim. As a theist I agree that existence is good, but there are non-theological forms of ethics. — Leontiskos
Those who take existence as a given can still do ethics. — Leontiskos
I don't understand how "I exist, but I should not exist" is a contradiction. — petrichor
e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.
f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.
g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim
I don't understand how "I exist, but I should not exist" is a contradiction. — petrichor
Good - what should be
I am glad to see you are more active again on the forum! I am guessing the new job has settle down a bit (: — Bob Ross
I don't think this is internally coherent for your position: you use the term 'good' to denote things which you do not thereby concede should exist. — Bob Ross
Let's say you can only perform one of the combinations (as performing one eliminates the possibility of performing the other): obviously, you would choose the second one (because it is more "good"). However, if you what you mean by "good" is merely "what should exist" then both combinations should exist; but it seems perfectly coherent for you to say "the first combination is good, but it should not exist because the second combination is better (i.e., 'more good')". — Bob Ross
As an external critique, the other issue is that defining goodness in this manner eliminates many commonly accepted usages of the concept; e.g., by saying that this clock is good for telling the time, one is not at all implying that the clock should exist. — Bob Ross
Just food for thought (: — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.