I wouldn't say that x should follow from y is the same as 'entails'. Should or ought in are words of intention or preference.
If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
That's about the gist. So if there is an objective standard of goodness that exists, it cannot logically conclude that it ought not to exist. For if it did, then that logically means it would be good if the objective conclusion did not exist. If we got rid of the objective morality based on its own conclusions then, we are left with only one answer, that there ought to be existence.
I don't think your proposition proves that existence as a concept is moral, only that the existence of an objective moral system is moral (which is somewhat redundant and tautological). — finarfin
g. If it is [not good] for anything to exist then it is not good for that objective moral standard to exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If it should not exist, then it should not be followed. It contradicts itself. — Philosophim
Yes, I agree. Therefore, an objective morality must advocate that its existence is just. But I don't see how that proves that the concept of existence itself is moral, or how it shows that our existence is moral. — finarfin
Because it cannot answer the question, "Should there be existence?" in the negative without contradicting itself. — Philosophim
It only contradicts itself in one unique case, when the objective morality is referring to itself. — finarfin
1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad, and
2. if "objective moral good" assumes "existence is good",
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad;
4 therefore if "objective morality",
5. then it necessarily assumes existence is both good and bad (i.e. "should be" and should not be) simultaneously – which is a contradiction;
6. therefore either (A) "objective morality" is not possible or (B) "objective morality" does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be";
7. however, objective morality is possible (e.g. disutilitarianism),
8. therefore (B) objective morality does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be". — QED
1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad, and
2. if "objective moral good" assumes "existence is good",
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad; — QED
Thanks.No worry on the delay, have a safe trip! — Philosophim
You're moving the goalposts: according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence". Your objection above is incorrect.3 is incorrect. If there should be existence, then the absence of existence would be bad.
You're moving the goalposts: according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence". The objection above is incorrect. — 180 Proof
Sure ...... according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence".
—180 Proof
Can you quote the part of the OP you're talking about? — Philosophim
The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good. — Philosophim
Sure ...
The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good. — 180 Proof
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad; — QED
Good is "What should be"
I conclude that if there is an objective morality, it necessarily must answer the question, "Should there be existence?" with Yes. — Philosophim
Do you mean something like 'If there is the Good, then existence must be good'? — Janus
I'm not arguing for the truth of Buddhism, just pointing out that it's always going to be a matter of interpretation. — Janus
i.e. show that the latter (bad) is not entailed by the former (good).1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad — 180 Proof
No, I mean the steps that I go through on the OP to reach the conclusion. If good is "what ought to be" and there is an objective morality, it must necessarily conclude "Yes" to the question of "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim
What is the difference between there being an objective morality and there being The Good? — Janus
1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad, and
2. if "objective moral good" assumes "existence is good",
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad; — QED
An objective morality would be an analysis of what good is apart from culture, emotions, or subjectivity.
How do you define "The Good"? I'm not using that term here so I don't know what it means. — Philosophim
Such an analysis would need an objectively good object of analysis, and that object would be "The Good" if it existed. — Janus
Okay, you can't ... — 180 Proof
I already said why I don't think it works, because it all depends on what objective goodness is. — Janus
Where in the OP do I go wrong when I show you what objective goodness must be? — Philosophim
Your non-reply reply to my ↪180 Proof (i.e. showing that your previous objection to my counter-argument fails) speaks for itself, sir. — 180 Proof
That doesn't tell us what should be — Janus
Did you understand the logic that lead to the answer being "Yes"? — Philosophim
d. Assume the answer is no.
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
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.