Objective Moralism

[Cruel__Machine]

This is a self contradicting argument. If it is ultimately meaningless what humans want, then it is ultimately meaningless what YOU want, as you are human. You are arguing voluntarily, because that is what you want to do. So, through the act of doing what you want to do, you argue that any arguments based on what humans want are meaningless, thus making your argument meaningless.

It's only self-contradictory if he recognizes his wants and/or statement as having meaning. Him making the statement doesn't imply that... he could be making the statement for irrational reasons or perhaps he believes that not making a statement is equally as meaningless.
Many people find their lives to be meaningless, as everyone's consciousness ultimately becomes nothing... and their days have accomplished nothing save it be the prolonging of other meaningless lives. But the mere act of living out their lives doesn't make their beliefs self-contradictory, because not living their lives is equally meaningless.
It all stems from that.

 

It's only self-contradictory if he recognizes his wants and/or statement as having meaning. Him making the statement doesn't imply that... he could be making the statement for irrational reasons or perhaps he believes that not making a statement is equally as meaningless.
Many people find their lives to be meaningless, as everyone's consciousness ultimately becomes nothing... and their days have accomplished nothing save it be the prolonging of other meaningless lives. But the mere act of living out their lives doesn't make their beliefs self-contradictory, because not living their lives is equally meaningless.
It all stems from that.

The statement remains self contradictory because it is a statement.

statement


• noun 1 a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. 2 a formal account of facts or events, especially one given to the police or in court. 3 a document setting out items of debit and credit between a bank or other organization and a customer.

expression


• noun 1 the action of expressing. 2 the look on someone’s face. 3 a word or phrase expressing an idea. 4 [SIZE=-1]Mathematics[/SIZE] a collection of symbols expressing a quantity.

express

/ikspress, ekspress/
• adjective 1 stated explicitly. 2 specifically identified to the exclusion of anything else.

meaning


• noun 1 what is meant by a word, idea, or action. 2 worthwhile quality; purpose.
• adjective expressive.

-ion


• suffix 1 forming nouns denoting verbal action or an instance of this: communion. 2 denoting a resulting state or product: oblivion.

So, based on oxford definitions, we may truthfully state that:
1. 'Expressive' is an adjective which describes the meaningfulness (or the quality of meaning) of something; and

2. The noun 'Expression' denotes the result of expressing, or being expressive.
Therefore:

3. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of the action of expressing something in speech or writing'; and

4. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of an action or state, having the attribute of meaningfulness (or the quality of meaning), as applied to something (a subject), put in to speech or writing.



Thus proving that the statement 'What humans want is meaningless' is a self contradiction.

The statement has meaning, by its very definition. You want to make the statement. Therefore what you want is to communicate meaningfully. Therefore the statement 'what humans want is meaningless' is contradicted by your desire to make the statement in the first place.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[Shredderbeam]

3. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of the action of expressing something in speech or writing';

4. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of an action or state, having the attribute of meaningfulness (or the quality of meaning), as applied to something (a subject), put in to speech or writing.

Well, a statement is not a "thing", per se. It is an abstract concept that declares something.

But, no matter. The way you are arguing is all very well and good in terms of human existence, yet let's try analyzing the logic behind the statement "what humans want is meaningless" without referring to the imperfect statement maker. In other words, let's argue in terms of logic, and not humans.

 

In other words, let's argue in terms of logic, and not humans.

Impossible. For there to be a debate two or more people must exist to debate it. Everything stems from that. To deny the root truth of all truths is to reject rational debate outright.

It is the nature of logic and truth that you cannot make an argument on a false premise and expect the conclusion to be true. Therefore, if you make a logical argument with the premise that a logical argument can be made without a person (or consciousness) to make it, it is already false. The premise is false therefore the conclusion can not be expected to be true.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Impossible. For there to be a debate two or more people must exist to debate it. Everything stems from that. To deny the root truth of all truths is to reject rational debate outright.

I believe that an argument can "exist", so to speak, without any humans believing in it. Logic is not suddenly invalided by the technicality of nobody following it. To state that it is impossible to show my my assertion is logically invalid means just that: It cannot be disproved.

 

I believe that an argument can "exist", so to speak, without any humans believing in it. Logic is not suddenly invalided by the technicality of nobody following it. To state that it is impossible to show my my assertion is logically invalid means just that: It cannot be disproved.

You have a narrow minded view of logic.
Logic is only the technical form of reasoning, given two or more premises, from one fact to another.

The premises must, however, be true for the conclusion to be valid.

If I were to say: "monkeys are one inch tall, pink, and smell like terpintine." I can form a perfectly valid set of logical reasoning based on that premise, but it is inevitably a waste of time, because any conclusion I draw from a premise which is absolutely false will be invalid. The conclusion may still be true, but that would not be because you have put forward a rational and consistent argument based on true premises. It would be merely co-incidence.

So, your logic may be perfectly valid, if it is encapuslated in your mind and you have never spoken a word of it, but it does not make the conclusions valid. Conclusions are only valid, and of absolute truth, when the premises are valid. One of the premises or 'assumptions' you make when you begin an argument is that you are arguing with someone. If you are not then your conclusion is invalid.

To recap:
When you put forward an argument, you attach to the argument a number of additional premises which are understood but not explicitly stated. Those premises you may refer to as assumptions, but the are necessarily premises of the logical argument as well.

These are premises such as:
You speak english, I speak english, and we both understand eachother.
We are both able to communicate in a meaningful way.
Truth is absolute and therefore there is a reason to be arguing in the first place.
I am not simply a figment of your imagination because arguing with yourself is irrational, as arguments are debates between two or more people.
We both exist, and are both alive, and are both conscious, and both have free will.

And so on.

Whenever you actually take your argument from your thoughts and turn them into language, that is: start a debate. You attach all of these premises (and more) to your argument. It is perfectly valid for me to point out that your argument contradicts an implicit premise.

And this is actually entirely essential to epistemology; the study of knowledge.

To argue outside of this scope is to argue irrationally and without the essential motive to determine truth from falsehood; knowledge from opinion.

 

[magi]

See this is where you are fundamentally wrong.

And heres why:
If people within child services have the moral authority to kidnap children, then why is it wrong for anyone else to kidnap children. This is not a preferred human behaviour, and it cannot be consistently applied to the entire human population, and therefore it is not moral.

So to be frank about it. You are syllogistically incorrect. There is no subjectivity here. You have stated your belief, and your belief is a falsehood. You must accept this fact and either change your belief, or further accept that you are a hypocrite.

NOTHING can be applied to the entire human population. Perhaps the modern world is a diffrent story but if you look into all the tribes/civilizations that existed and still exist today, you can see that they live by a completely diffrent 'moral code' then us. You can't group the entire population of Earth under one set of moral beliefs.

 

[Shinoda]

NOTHING can be applied to the entire human population. Perhaps the modern world is a diffrent story but if you look into all the tribes/civilizations that existed and still exist today, you can see that they live by a completely diffrent 'moral code' then us. You can't group the entire population of Earth under one set of moral beliefs.

That's part of the point that these two have been trying to hammer out.

The fact that you can't apply the morals of one culture to another.

Pointing out the contradictions inherent in such things etc, etc, etc.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I have been doing what Sythe has cautioned against: Disputing the conclusion even after I accepted the premises! That is illogical, and a silly thing to do.

I reject the premises:

It just so happens that libertarianism is based on what's called the 'non aggression' principle. That is: you never have the right to initiate force against another human unless they have initiated force against you to begin with (self defense).

Why don't I have that right?

Let us assume that the Libertarian goal has been achieved. The world is an anarchist state, nobody act against each other, natural disasters are dealt with through charity, etc.

Consider Tom. Tom is, to all eyes, a hardworking member of society who does his fair share. He appears to be a model, upstanding person. However, every night, Tom steals thousands of dollars from successful corporations. The corporations do not collapse, their bottom line is not affected, and nobody is the wiser. Society continues on as normal. Why is it morally wrong for Tom to do this, given that his actions do not reflect the condition of society as a whole? Certainly, if all people acted that way, society would collapse, but he is the only one.

 

NOTHING can be applied to the entire human population. Perhaps the modern world is a diffrent story but if you look into all the tribes/civilizations that existed and still exist today, you can see that they live by a completely diffrent 'moral code' then us. You can't group the entire population of Earth under one set of moral beliefs.

You have claimed that nothing can be applied to the entire human population.

I give you an example of a set of rules which can: medical science.
Medical science is optional but that does not make it subjective.
I have now proven your proposition to be incorrect.

 

I have been doing what Sythe has cautioned against: Disputing the conclusion even after I accepted the premises! That is illogical, and a silly thing to do.

I reject the premises:



Why don't I have that right?

Let us assume that the Libertarian goal has been achieved. The world is an anarchist state, nobody act against each other, natural disasters are dealt with through charity, etc.

Consider Tom. Tom is, to all eyes, a hardworking member of society who does his fair share. He appears to be a model, upstanding person. However, every night, Tom steals thousands of dollars from successful corporations. The corporations do not collapse, their bottom line is not affected, and nobody is the wiser. Society continues on as normal. Why is it morally wrong for Tom to do this, given that his actions do not reflect the condition of society as a whole? Certainly, if all people acted that way, society would collapse, but he is the only one.

I am not going to argue with you unless you accept this basic definition as a premise of the debate:


Morality is defined as universally preferred behaviour within the species of homo sapiens sapiens. That is: An action that is moral is universally preferred within the human species. An action that is immoral is universally unpreferred within the human species. Universal meaning that there are very few exceptions, with those exceptions being cases such as psychopaths.


If you don't agree to accept the above then the argument is pointless; You are free to start you own thread to debate the definition of morality.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I am not going to argue with you unless you accept this basic definition as a premise of the debate:


Morality is defined as universally preferred behaviour within the species of homo sapiens sapiens. That is: An action that is moral is universally preferred within the human species. An action that is immoral is universally unpreferred within the human species. Universal meaning that there are very few exceptions, with those exceptions being cases such as psychopaths.

If that is the definition to be used, then I fully accept your argument. Stealing is then immoral, though perhaps it's not the same immorality that many people conceive of when they hear the word. But, no matter.

This argument then basically follows the negative form of the "Golden Rule", as Confucius puts nicely: "Do not do unto your neighbor what is hateful to you."

But, we cannot consider pain to be a universal negative, for there are those who take pleasure from it. There is probably a psychotic condition for every universal negative where the sufferer experiences it as a positive.