[QUOTE=phygon;49729817]I feel bad for people that hear what sophist's say and take it face value because they don't have the background to argue with them[/QUOTE]
Agreed ;)
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729799]The exact same thing would apply to physical senses. Every person sees differently, smells differently, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that those things really do exist in one specific way or another. The fact that all the different people see them helps to confirm it, even if they see it differently.
Every person has a subjective experience about objective things.[/QUOTE]
Every person has the same tools(by and large) to observe, and understand the world, and the actions they're about to take, or have taken. Yes every person would subjectively experience things in their own manner, and yes they would have their own experiences, but as we established previously, you can't even be sure those so called "objective realities" exist, let alone the more obscure, or conceptual things.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729804]All else being equal, it seems to be good is to have more structural complexity - to fight against entropy.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I'm not arguing what's "good" or "bad", just what "is"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729850]Every person has the same tools(by and large) to observe, and understand the world, and the actions they're about to take, or have taken. Yes every person would subjectively experience things in their own manner, and yes they would have their own experiences, but as we established previously, you can't even be sure those so called "objective realities" exist, let alone the more obscure, or conceptual things.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
Sure, I'm not arguing what's "good" or "bad", just what "is"[/QUOTE]
Yes, but on the basis of the acceptance of things like sensory information we can deduce other things that would be logically necessary from that structure. What we are speaking about now is whether linguistically expressed concepts can exist in any meaningful way. One way to go about it could be to define justice as the set of all information in the world correlating to justice. The question then becomes whether things like mathematical entities and sets exist.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
Why couldn't a large gathering of information, which, taken together, produces agent-tense specific action, be considered objective?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729850]Every person has the same tools(by and large) to observe, and understand the world, and the actions they're about to take, or have taken. Yes every person would subjectively experience things in their own manner, and yes they would have their own experiences, but as we established previously, you can't even be sure those so called "objective realities" exist, let alone the more obscure, or conceptual things.[/QUOTE]
My argument is that a person can rationally hold that morals exist outside of one's self in the same way that one can hold that the physical world exists outside of one's self, equally rationally.
So, if you hold a sort of rejectionist view of all knowledge, that no real knowledge exists at all, then sure, my arguments would be totally meaningless. On the other hand, if you hold that we can rationally believe that the physical outside world exists based on our personal and group experience of it, then I argue that you can also rationally believe that moral truth exists based on our personal and group experience of it.
The last 200 years of philosophy couldn't answer that but I am sure FP can.
Or maybe we just accept that "I make up my own truth and you can't disprove that" people won't have impact on anything ever or are mostly using it to excuse themselves and go on.
Conspiracy idiots, hardcore religious fanatics, magnetically purified water drinkers, god spoke to meers, I am sure they all believe in their own truths and will get hellbent on why logic doesn't apply to it at some point.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49729906]The last 200 years of philosophy couldn't answer that but I am sure FP can.
Or maybe we just accept that "I make up my own truth and you can't disprove that" won't have impact on anything ever or are mostly using it to excuse themselves and go on.[/QUOTE]
sorry we're discussing these things on the internet, we shoulda known better
That I agree on
[QUOTE=Killuah;49729906]The last 200 years of philosophy couldn't answer that but I am sure FP can.
Or maybe we just accept that "I make up my own truth and you can't disprove that" people won't have impact on anything ever or are mostly using it to excuse themselves and go on.
Conspiracy idiots, hardcore religious fanatics, magnetically purified water drinkers, god spoke to meers, I am sure they all believe in their own truths and will get hellbent on why logic doesn't apply to it at some point.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it's all the same and everything that can be invented already has been. Right?
[QUOTE=Killuah;49729906]The last 200 years of philosophy couldn't answer that but I am sure FP can.
Or maybe we just accept that "I make up my own truth and you can't disprove that" people won't have impact on anything ever or are mostly using it to excuse themselves and go on.
Conspiracy idiots, hardcore religious fanatics, magnetically purified water drinkers, god spoke to meers, I am sure they all believe in their own truths and will get hellbent on why logic doesn't apply to it at some point.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of this post? People other than yourself are voluntarily discussion something. Believe it or not, other people don't care if you like what they do.
If you don't like it, then don't post.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49729906]The last 200 years of philosophy couldn't answer that but I am sure FP can.
Or maybe we just accept that "I make up my own truth and you can't disprove that" people won't have impact on anything ever[/quote]
Yeah man it sure is a good thing that those people never have affected anyth
[IMG]http://flatrock.org.nz/static/frontpage/assets/history/crusades.gif[/IMG]
Also, many of your posts trying to argue a point are incredibly anti-academic in that you constantly try to use emotion etc to "disprove" people and you're part of the "If you disagree with me you are wrong and dumb and a bad person" crusade on SH. You also use the argument of "well you aren't part of X group, so you can't argue that point" frequently so you don't feel the need to actually refute the point. Seriously, it's fucking obnoxious, stop. Stop masturbatory posting.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729900]My argument is that a person can rationally hold that morals exist outside of one's self in the same way that one can hold that the physical world exists outside of one's self, equally rationally.
So, if you hold a sort of rejectionist view of all knowledge, that no real knowledge exists at all, then sure, my arguments would be totally meaningless. On the other hand, if you hold that we can rationally believe that the physical outside world exists based on our personal and group experience of it, then I argue that you can also rationally believe that moral truth exists based on our personal and group experience of it.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that while there are many different interpretations of justice, there is only one true interpretation of justice that is not dependent on any human's subjective view of the concept of justice?
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49730204]So are you saying that while there are many different interpretations of justice, there is only one true interpretation of justice that is not dependent on any human's subjective view of the concept of justice?[/QUOTE]
As an example, I think raping a child is always wrong and deserves some form of punishment.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49730620]As an example, I think raping a child is always wrong and deserves some form of punishment.[/QUOTE]
Okay but that isnt a "true" form of justice. Thats a human moral code of sorts.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49730620]As an example, I think raping a child is always wrong and deserves some form of punishment.[/QUOTE]
But the child rapist doesn't think that. We may know implicitly what he did was wrong, but we can't prove it's wrong. we can only argue it's subjective, and in the best interest of everyone, to punish that behavior. That may even go so far as being a biologically wired response in most people. The child rapist, someone I personally think would be in the wrong in the extremist sense of that word, wouldn't see themselves necessarily as a villain, leaving a formalized objective and independent "moral" code existing beyond us largely irrelevant as we clearly have too many options for what can even be seen as "right" or "wrong".
[QUOTE=sgman91;49730620]As an example, I think raping a child is always wrong and deserves some form of punishment.[/QUOTE]
We can agree that we personally (and as a society) see raping a child as wrong and we find it very hard to see it any other way, but there is not absolute objective correct punishment for that act.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49728531]You can rule out infinite numbers of wrong answers.
How big is 2?
2 not smaller or equal to 1 and not bigger or equal to 3.
There, Ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers.[/QUOTE]
That's not how infinity works
Thats like saying there aren't an infinite amount of positive numbers because there's an infinite amount of whole numbers (postiive + negative + 0). So if you remove half of the numbers you don't have infinity!!!
With all the batshit crazy things I hear from people on a daily basis that are completely unfounded in reality, I'm glad to see Maddox cover this kind of thing
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;49731151]That's not how infinity works
Thats like saying there aren't an infinite amount of positive numbers because there's an infinite amount of whole numbers (postiive + negative + 0). So if you remove half of the numbers you don't have infinity!!![/QUOTE]
What? That's not what my post meant at all?
I also don't get your counterexample to be honest.
You obviously can remove an infinite amount of elements from an infinite quantity and still keep it infinitely large.
That was exactly the point. That "but there are infinite possibilities" is a bullshit counterargument to scientific thinking because you can still rule out the bullshit while keeping the possibilities that make sense or can't be ruled out yet.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49730620]As an example, I think raping a child is always wrong and deserves some form of punishment.[/QUOTE]
Are you going to answer my question or avoid it again?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729900]My argument is that a person can rationally hold that morals exist outside of one's self in the same way that one can hold that the physical world exists outside of one's self, equally rationally.
So, if you hold a sort of rejectionist view of all knowledge, that no real knowledge exists at all, then sure, my arguments would be totally meaningless. On the other hand, if you hold that we can rationally believe that the physical outside world exists based on our personal and group experience of it, then I argue that you can also rationally believe that moral truth exists based on our personal and group experience of it.[/QUOTE]
is this what happens when you major in philosophy at a liberal arts college
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729900]My argument is that a person can rationally hold that morals exist outside of one's self in the same way that one can hold that the physical world exists outside of one's self, equally rationally.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I believe that green is the best color. I can observe that, when asked, almost every other person has a color that they like better than other colors as well, even if they don't agree on what that color is. Therefore, it is rational to believe that there exists a color that is objectively superior to all other colors, even if some people incorrectly believe that a different color is better.
Are you starting to see the problem with this line of reasoning?
We kinda agreed on Empirism..like...a few hundred years ago sgman91 and it's not the same as Relativism which you also are only cherrypicking for your things you believe in.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;49733738]Personally, I believe that green is the best color. I can observe that, when asked, almost every other person has a color that they like better than other colors as well, even if they don't agree on what that color is. Therefore, it is rational to believe that there exists a color that is objectively superior to all other colors, even if some people incorrectly believe that a different color is better.
Are you starting to see the problem with this line of reasoning?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but then I could say something to the effect of "who is to say that someone who's favorite color is blue experiences it in the same way that you experience green. They identify it as blue, but see what you see when you see green. Therefore it is still possible that everyone's favorite color is the same."
(At this point I'm just picking fun)
[QUOTE=Killuah;49732561]What? That's not what my post meant at all?
I also don't get your counterexample to be honest.
You obviously can remove an infinite amount of elements from an infinite quantity and still keep it infinitely large.
That was exactly the point. That "but there are infinite possibilities" is a bullshit counterargument to scientific thinking because you can still rule out the bullshit while keeping the possibilities that make sense or can't be ruled out yet.[/QUOTE]
You can throw out the bullshit but there will still be an infinite amount of bullshit
Either way yeah my bad for not reading the context
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49734210]Yes, but then I could say something to the effect of "who is to say that someone who's favorite color is blue experiences it in the same way that you experience green. They identify it as blue, but see what you see when you see green. Therefore it is still possible that everyone's favorite color is the same."
(At this point I'm just picking fun)[/QUOTE]
O... kay? What does this have to do with anything?
If there are true right actions, but we have no tools to determine what these true rights are, then it can only be assumed that everything can or can not be a true right action. Perhaps its the limited perspective humans have in terms of universal fabric, perhaps after death we obtain an expanded perspective where it turns out murder has some benefit to the basic reality of the universe. If it turns out that murder has some universal benefit that we can not observe currently, then it comes to reason that all of our actions have some right and some wrong, since we do not know with 100% certainty what our actions will do.
[QUOTE=Blackshot;49739455]If there are true right actions, but we have no tools to determine what these true rights are, then it can only be assumed that everything can or can not be a true right action. Perhaps its the limited perspective humans have in terms of universal fabric, perhaps after death we obtain an expanded perspective where it turns out murder has some benefit to the basic reality of the universe. If it turns out that [B]murder[/B] has some universal benefit that we can not observe currently, then it comes to reason that all of our actions have some right and some wrong, since we do not know with 100% certainty what our actions will do.[/QUOTE]
I'd just like to point out that it doesn't make sense to speak of murder being right. Murder is illegal killing - wrongful homicide. One can kill without murdering.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;49738041]O... kay? What does this have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
It shows that objectivity needn't NECESSARILY be trumped by different preferences.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49740196]I'd just like to point out that it doesn't make sense to speak of murder being right. Murder is illegal killing - wrongful homicide. One can kill without murdering.[/QUOTE]
Which requires you to make the assumption that breaking the law is inherently immoral and that killing someone is morally justifiable when the law allows it, and furthermore [i]only[/i] when the law allows it.
If you believe that objective morality does exist (which I think is a silly thing to base your assumptions on as you can neither observe it or it's impact on the things it affects, nor test it in any meaningful way), it seems more than likely that the law is not perfectly aligned to it. In fact, since the law isn't the universally the same everywhere on earth, it's actually impossible for the law to always be morally correct. Which, technically, means that murder could in fact be morally correct.
In fact, if you want to go by the assumption that objective morality exists, there is absolutely no reason to assume that what human beings find morally abhorrent is actually immoral. For all we know, child rape, torture, murder for personal gain etc. could be totally in line with "objective" morality and we would have no way to tell that our natural emotional response to those acts is incorrect.
This is just one of the many problems with working off of the assumption that objective morality (or really any unobservable and untestable entity or principle) exists. If objective morality actually does exist, but if we have no way to observe it or it's impact on the things it affects, no way to test it's properties, and if it has no actual effect on the world around us beyond the degree to which human beings do or do not enforce their completely baseless and possibly incorrect interpretation of it, then it is functionally equivalent to being non-existent.
I have a hypothesis that sgman91 is trolling
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49745158]I have a hypothesis that sgman91 is trolling[/QUOTE]
Not everyone that has a contrary point of view is "trolling".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
