I've already told you why I disagree with it. — Janus
You've given a personal opinion, but not a refutation of the OP. Its ok, I know not everyone reads and understands the OP. — Philosophim
I've given an argument that in my personal opinion refutes the OP. In your personal opinion it does not refute the OP. — Janus
I'm not convinced you really think our exchange was a good conversation — Janus
Its not an opinion. You didn't address the arguments of the OP. No citation of the steps, nor refutation of the specific reasoning given. — Philosophim
But, I'll try a different tack (which amounts to the same thing):
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. — Janus
If something morally objective exists it could not be an empirical existent. — Janus
↪Philosophim The only existence we know is our empirical existence and so the question, "should there be existence?" if it doesn't refer to that empirical existence, is meaningless. — Janus
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll:Existence is "What is". — Philosophim
Lets say there's another form of existence that's not empirical. It exists right? — Philosophim
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. — 180 Proof
Bravo! Encore!If we realize that all existence is good when compared to nothing, then we have an objective base to build off of. — Philosophim
see sticky note moved from here 5/15/24 1154pmAn objective morality cannot be based on emotions, nor can it only appeal to normal or good people. — Philosophim
This is good to point out, bob (underlined)That's not coherent to my claim. I already mentioned if both could co-exist then both should as that's more existence. The only case in which we decide one over the other is if both cannot co-exist, or we only have the capacity to choose one over the other.
You sidestepped what I said: mentioning that both co-existing would be better doesn’t address the hypothetical I gave you. ‘What should be’ is a final consideration: it leaves out any discussion of a hierarchy of good things that never make the cut for being things which should exist. — Bob Ross
There is no question that we all suffer. You view morality as a methodology of easing human suffering and providing benefits to humanity. But that's not objective. — Philosophim
we can...But if you cannot raise it to the level of possibility or impossibility, then cogently, we can dismiss the argument as a thought that cannot be elevated enough to be a serious consideration in the argument — Philosophim
That is excatly right, Philosophim! ONWARD!Ha ha! No worry. It needs to be challenged in every way. A claim to objectivity requires it. — Philosophim
The morality I'm looking at is the deeper morality that would give us an objective justification for concluding that humanity should flourish. The morality I'm asking would exist even if humans didn't. Its a morality that can be applied to animals, and even the non-conscious universe itself. It does not care about our personal benefit, or our cultural subjective viewpoints. — Philosophim
I think you are onto something here..You might be missing context as the important factor. Within the context in which both can co-exist,it is good for both to co-exist. In the context in which only one can exist, it will be a greater good for one of them to exist over the other. But this second context does not universalize that the one which will not exist wouldn't be good if they could both exist.
Lets use people. An 80 year old man is out with their 5 year old grandson. As they pass by a building, an explosion happens. The still spry grandfather can leap out of the way, but his grandson will die. If he stays, he will die, but his grandson will live.
Ideally both should be able to live. But given the situation, only one can. In the situation between the grandfather and grandchild its not that the grandfather shouldn't exist, its that the best outcome within this specific situation is that the grandfather dies protecting the grandson. A moral outcome based on a limitation does not mean that we will have the same moral outcome with that limitation removed. — Philosophim
Is it necessary to go this direction? ITS A DEAD END the road we take because we are blinded by confusion and thinking any relevance comes around the questioning if nothing exists path....Now, it is the case that if nothing exists, then no standard of goodness can exist. If that's what you're getting at, that seems fine. But here, the term "exists" seems like it could also be equivocal. Do facts like 1+1=2 exist outside of created existence? Do they exist necessarily?
Well, if they do exist in a way different from how chairs and tables exist, and the standard of good exists in the way necessary facts exist, then it seems possible for it to exist while also stating that created existence "ought not exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus
, and we shall BECAUSE WE CAN AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO! I did not present a rejection, I rightfully questioned the intention and ability of the person (you) who seeks to proceed with building a new process (the objection that can come from ideas presented in OP). I think you are reading into the emotions before acknowledging the character for what it is? Shame on you! You know better than that!! AND ALSO I can give a general consensus, (who else is going to? Who COULD?) because my intentions to enhance the efforts you seek to start doing, the building, are true in that I believe you are taking THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN YOUR EFFORTS presented in the OP. Are you seriously asking MEEEEEE if the logic in the OP proper??? WHO AM I TO SAY? LOOK AT THE WAY I EXPRESS MYSELF? DO YOU SEE ME USING LOGIC IN MY STYLE and EFFORTS? I dont know much or care to learn proper logic, and have said it before.. it is not required. It is not useless, it is very valuable for some people to understand "things" but that is out of my place to speak on...I will argue NOTHING "needs" to be logically correct, it needs to be real and if it is real it OUGHT to be able to be logically put from there....does that make sense or am I slow? ACTUALLY don't answer that last question.... :roll: It might contradict things if you do that, correctly...ha!My question to you now is if the initial logic I've noted above seems sound. If I can get a general consensus that this seems like a logical start, I can build from here. Yes, your initial impression might be an emotional rejection or not understanding what the point is. But ignoring that, does the logic hold? — Philosophim
Yep, seems obvious to me. What does that say about YOU? (literally anyone- lets compare)No objective conclusion that I know of leads to a contradiction of itself, therefore anything which is a contradiction cannot be objective. Ergo, "Existence ought to be" is the only conclusion which an objective morality could conclude. — Philosophim
I agree with Janus here and its clear from my initial comment...when I replied "bleak" directly to you earlier it is not personal. I also used the word when addressing Philosophim from the start its validity exists in that it is nothing more than my immediate reaction based on the effort I felt you were taking. I stand corrected, your efforts in questioning are as valid as mine. So without rejecting the aims of this post, I do want to point out I initially was on the same page as Janus and make clear - I think nothing of your character. I simply feel the words expressed on a screen that cant be trusted without making a choice.That it exists doesn't contradict the idea that the rest of existence shouldn't exist. That would only be so if it were the creator, as the 'Gnostic' example I gave shows. According to that account the Good is a transcendent God, not the deluded demiurge who created this world. — Janus
Existence is "What is".
— Philosophim
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll: — 180 Proof
The hypothetical stated that they cannot both co-exist; but I understand what you are saying: it just doesn’t address the issue. — Bob Ross
How? I don't understand. Please give an example of the issue in another way so I can understand then. You can use the grandfather, the grandson, and the explosion to demonstrate if you wish.
In order for there to be a standard, there must exist already something that is morally good. If this is true, then existence cannot be that standard; because that would be circular. — Bob Ross
A logically necessary requirement for something is not a circular fallacy
Sure, we can entertain the idea that there might be some kind of existence we have no idea of, but it's no better than fiction, in fact it's worse, because fiction is really based on our experience of this world. — Janus
Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded. — Barkon
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
9. X should exist, and Y should not exist.
10. Y should not exist, but is good. (6 & 9)
11. Good is ‘what should be’.
9. 10 is then incoherent: Y should not exist, but it should exist. (10 restated in light of 11)
Your response, was to sidestep the issue by denying 8 and commenting on if they both could co-exist. That’s blatantly not the point. — Bob Ross
If what is morally good (let’s call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence is not what is morally good—it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good. — Bob Ross
So then we're back to the point where my points remain unchallenged. — Philosophim
A real guarantor of objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent, so your argument fails from the start unless you posit a transcendent guarantor. — Janus
And, as I've pointed out, whether or not the existence of that transcendent guarantor is itself good has no bearing on whether empirical existence is good — Janus
Where is your proof that an objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent? — Philosophim
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists. — Philosophim
But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion. — Philosophim
Unfortunately, we are just talking past each other; and I would just be reiterating if I responded. So I will let it rest.
Take care, Philosophim! — Bob Ross
There is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. — Janus
For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, — Janus
At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis. — Janus
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists.
— Philosophim
That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words — Janus
The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence. — Janus
But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.
— Philosophim
You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. — Janus
The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed. — Janus
Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right? — Philosophim
So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one. — Philosophim
The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence.
— Janus
Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion? — Philosophim
So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP. — Philosophim
True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable — Janus
We can't really imagine, in the sense of "form an image of" an eternal existence. We can think it as the dialectical opposite of temporal, that is all. — Janus
Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical — Janus
If it wasn't universal, then it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere, if it was not eternal it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness at all times. — Janus
So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP.
— Philosophim
Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here. — Janus
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.