:lol:Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
Our first necessarily objective good:Existence— Philosophim
Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti
I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.
Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living. — Benj96
This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction. — Philosophim
That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. All philosophies are "wrong" in a sense that they are produced out of a limitation of life experiences beheld by its creators.Is existence good? — Benj96
I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust. — Benj96
That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. — DifferentiatingEgg
Fact is: the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality.The question here is are some philosophies "more true" (objective) than others? — Benj96
People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality." Fact is, the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality. — DifferentiatingEgg
Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical result — Philosophim
Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence? — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence? — DifferentiatingEgg
Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality. — Benj96
So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality. — Benj96
The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no. — Philosophim
Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is blue — Philosophim
Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality period — Philosophim
However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity. — Benj96
So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it! — Benj96
I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts. — Benj96
Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is. — Benj96
↪Philosophim Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg
Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise. — DifferentiatingEgg
@180 ProofNonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti
Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug* — DifferentiatingEgg
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.