Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
Our first necessarily objective good:Existence
— Philosophim
:lol:
Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real..
— Thomas Ligotti — 180 Proof
Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.. — 180 Proof
If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges. — DifferentiatingEgg
:roll: Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that. — Philosophim
Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that: — 180 Proof
↪Philosophim (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ... — 180 Proof
↪180 Proof What are you talking about? — bert1
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
First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. — Pantagruel
You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"? — Pantagruel
1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim
All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. — Pantagruel
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
As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. — Pantagruel
In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. — Pantagruel
If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. — Philosophim
Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions). — Pantagruel
"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction). — Pantagruel
a. Assume that there is an objective morality.
If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.
b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".
Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false. — Philosophim
What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion — Pantagruel
some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out. — Pantagruel
Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. — Pantagruel
It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it. — Pantagruel
Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all — Philosophim
The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. — Pantagruel
↪Philosophim But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not? — Pantagruel
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.