What I'm saying is that in order for there to be something good, there must be something. If there is nothing, there is no good, but that doesn't necessitate it being bad. It just means the weight of nothingness is undefined, but not that it's zero. To be zero presumes a scale, but we presume no scale in nothingness.

And let's not pretend we have a conceptual grasp of nothingness. We must impart existence upon any concept for any understanding of it, including the concept of nothingness.

To the question of is something better than nothing, I can't evaluate the something universe from the nothing universe to compare them.

What I'm saying is that in order for there to be something good, there must be something. If there is nothing, there is no good, but that doesn't necessitate it being bad. It just means the weight of nothingness is undefined, but not that it's zero. To be zero presumes a scale, but we presume no scale in nothingness. — Hanover

Feel free to move onto my next post where I would indeed say that nothingness is zero. I actually introduce a method to quantify existence and compare whether one state is better than another. These were always meant to be read together, I just split it up so people wouldn't balk at the long read of everything together. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1

Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here.

I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue:

It's fine to define good as "what should be", but this doesn't explain how "should" applies in the absence of minds to make choices. Equating it to "good" doesn't add anything - because that's still a judgment. — Relativist

Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here. — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't get how you draw that from my last reply, but if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, have a nice day.

↪Philosophim I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue: — Relativist

If you didn't want to read it, that's fine. Have a good one Relativist.

I read the entire post. Regretfully.

↪Philosophim I read the entire post. Regretfully. — Relativist

And absolutely nothing to say after having much to say prior? We moved from existence as abstract into quantity and now have a means of measuring particular states of existence as better based on the initial principle. I thought showing you how good and bad were quantified states of existence would be a prime example of how a should can exist apart from a mind. Such morality does not need intelligent creatures, but is a consequence of the notion that existence is good.

The quantification of existence also demonstrates that within any set existence, the way their potential and actual combinations can result in more quantified existence in any moment T, thus demonstrating a better vs lesser outcome. I was hoping this would answer most of your five points you wrote earlier.

1) How does "should" applies to objects that lack minds. IOW, explain what it means to say "X should Y" where X is an object lacking a mind.

I've explained before I believe the should is simply a logical property of existence. And I showed you an example of that logical property in action through quantification. So you got to see how it works with an example.

2) You seemed to agree that existence is metaphysically necessary, so how does "should" apply to the fact of a metaphysically necessary existence?

I never stated existence was metaphysically necessary. I'm noting that for existence to continue, it must exist. And that continued existence is the source of good on the abstract level. The quantification of existence allows us a next step from that abstract into a live example. While its not yet life, life follows the same pattern as the underlying matter. Was that too boring to consider? Did the math through you? I'm genuinely asking this as I've wondered if people can get past this part when most everyone is chomping at the bit to get to the higher level stuff with animals and people.

I think your 3 and 4 are covered by the above.

5) Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is both contingent (see #3) and random (see #4)?

Lets simplify this. Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is merely a property of existence, and has no punishment, reward, or someone waiting on the other side to enforce it? We should through reason. Just like we do anything else in life. We didn't have to ride horses, we could have just walked. We didn't have to build cars, we could have just rode horses. Understanding how the universe works allows us to construct and approach methodologies and technologies that drive the human race forward.

There is nothing to compel us to moral decisions besides the atoms we are composed of. Besides the fact that our bodies work every day to continue this chemical interaction that constantly needs to seek out energy and repair. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the existence in this universe, and the underlying reality that existence is what should be vs not be is what keeps us going. Understanding that and exploring the logical consequences of that can allow us an independent analysis in many situations, especially when conflicts of moral feelings occur.

If the atomic analysis is not to your liking, the next post linked at the end of that OP goes into how this applies to life, and then ultimately human and social interaction. The plain analysis of matter can be difficult for many to wrap their head around as its a completely new notion and feels disconnected from the moral questions of our subjective existence, so reading ahead might give you the 'aha' you need to go back and see the building blocks how we get there.

It is of course up to you. Perhaps you're bored with the topic, or its gone to a place you just don't want to go. It is as always an opportunity to think, to stretch your mind, and to consider a new possibility for morality.

Not much to talk about other than your argument being predicated in fallacy. Especially the Is-Ought. That you've perpetuated the farce of this discussion for over 12 months is poor form and circular reasoning to insanity.

Not much to talk about other than your argument being predicated in fallacy. Especially the Is-Ought. That you've perpetuated the farce of this discussion for over 12 months is poor form and circular reasoning to insanity. — DifferentiatingEgg

1. My previous post was an exploration, not a proof. It is a different approach then what I've presented here and my views have changed. Presenting feedback of an is/ought fallacy there would have been good criticism. Going to a previous post and using elements of that there which I do not use or claim here is a straw man fallacy. If you had to go to another post and pull points there that I don't claim here, this only gives me confidence that the points I've presented here are sound.

2. I never insulted you for your criticism and treated you with respect, asked for follow ups when I didn't understand, and tried to answer your questions honestly. Your accusation of this being a farce is immature, disrespectful, and uncalled for after committing a clear logical fallacy. If you're here to discuss for your personal ego, leave. I'm here for intelligent people who want to think and talk respectfully to one another.

You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion.

Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. You post about it in anything else you're in just about trying to funnel traffic here to continually discuss and perpetuate this post.

"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good.

It's perfectly fine to maintain this as an opinion and world view, but you don't have an actual argument. Just opinion.

You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion. — DifferentiatingEgg

You may not be aware of this, but the first person to start using derogatory remarks as an argument is the person who has lost the argument and is having a hard time coping. That's you to be clear.

Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. — DifferentiatingEgg

I want you to reread the last post where I stated that your is/ought fallacy was correct for my previous post. Read it again. You were correct for that post. See how I'm very willing to admit my shortcomings? Its nothing to be wrong. However this post contains a different approach and content to my previous one. In philosophy it is often that we begin looking at an idea one way, then evolve as we discuss with other people.

That post was specifically a post directed to explore the idea. It wasn't an assertion of a proof, just a supposition. You are correct, my supposition there could not be a proof as it wasn't intended to be. You could have rightly noted it was an is/ought fallacy for proof, and you would be correct. I have explored the idea much since then, and wrote this paper with a different approach that does not commit the is/ought fallacy. Or if it does, you haven't pointed out where here. If you can, I'll accept it without issue. That requires a good argument from your part about THIS post, not another post with a different argument and approach. If you don't know what a straw man fallacy is, its raising up an argument the poster is not using, beating it, then saying this unrelated argument defeats the argument of the poster. Its a simple mistake to do, but since I've pointed it out, you shouldn't insist on holding it if you're a fair thoughtful person to talk to.

"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good. — DifferentiatingEgg

I do not present this argument anywhere in the OP. Therefore you are wrong. It should be a simple enough thing to admit, "Yeah, ok," and try another tact. That's a thinker. You and I both want to view yourself as one, so just be cool, ask questions, try different tactics, and drop the derogatory remarks.

I'm not sure if you know what fallacy fallacy is. Just because I call your continued use of fallacy poor form, doesn't make it any less true.

Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit.

Continued red herring after red herring in an attempt to maintain your fallacious argument.

"Existence is, thus it ought to be good."

We no reason to even move beyond this fallacy to which you use to perpetuate other fallacies and circular reasoning.

You there's a reason you've not put together valid and sound premises that necessarily conclude your point.

Because all you have in an opinion.

You cannot get beyond the fact that "bad should be" because without it, Good is meaningless, and thus saying "Good should be" is meaningless.

Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'll try one more time just in case you didn't understand. I don't use any claim in this OP that what ought to be is because it is. Please point out where in the OP if you believe I'm doing this. Use quotes and citation so you can prove exactly where I do this.

"Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.

Doesn't matter how you word it... the holophrasticity of language shows it's what you're declaring.

You're saying "cause I only use Ought, I can pretend there is no is"... but to derive at "good should be" you did so by having some argument before begging this question... as to why good should be...

↪Philosophim "Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.

Doesn't matter how you word it... — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't see how that is. If good = what should be then bad = what shouldn't be. Thus there should be some states of existence that are more preferential than others right? The OP is noting a very specific instance, the choice between any existence at all and no existence. The conclusion is that if there is an objective morality, the only conclusion is that in this very specific instance, its better for there to be existence than nothing at all.

The second post goes into more detail in how we can look at existence and break it down into quantities. After breaking it into quantities we can ask if there are certain states which are preferable than other states of existence. And indeed, I do find this.

But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it.

The following is yip yap red herring talking in circles

But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it. — Philosophim

You say "Good Should Be"

This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, "why good should be?" which always points back to the is-ought fallacy of your initial argument as to why "good should be".

Of course you don't point to it in the OP, the OP is predicated in the fallacy of the argument that leads to "good should be."

This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, which always points back to the is-ought fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm starting with the definition that good = 'what should be'. Like in the dictionary. Do you have another definition of good? Then I ask, "Should nothing be, or something be?" You can most certainly disagree with my definition, but I still don't see how I'm making an is/ought fallacy by noting a definition. I'm starting to feel we're having more a linguistic misunderstanding at this point then difference in arguments.

Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun.

↪Philosophim Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm still not seeing this and your answers are becoming shorter and shorter. There is no reason, no quotes, and no further explanation behind this statement. Its sounds like you're done. If so, I appreciate your second attempt and hope to have another nice conversation another time.

Because it's not hard to continually point to the same fallacies.

"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought.

And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good.

More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies.

You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be"

This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts.

You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though ...

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. — Philosophim

Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought.

Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce.

"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought. — DifferentiatingEgg

Its just a definition. And its that the term is defined as "What should be." I'll ask again, do you have another definition of good? If you have an issue with my definition that's fine. Me proposing a definition that many would agree with is not a logical is/ought fallacy.

And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok, now this is something we can discuss. So you think the definition of good is what we desire. So if I desire to murder a child is that good? What is your justification for noting that anything we desire is good?

More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies. — DifferentiatingEgg

Again, this is not an argument of supposition, it is an introduction to a definition and then logical arguments from there. Feel free to disagree with the definition and what you would propose instead. My definition does not fall into the is/ought fallacy as it is merely a definition, but you can propose another we should work with and why you think that's better.

You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be" — DifferentiatingEgg

Once again, I'm going to type out a more complete representation here. I say the definition of good is "What should be". You have not asked me to justify this until now. Instead of saying, "You cannot state," simply ask me to justify it first.

At the heart of every claim to good, there is the notion that what is good is a state that is preferable over another. Lets start basic. Good is making a child laugh with joy. Bad is murdering a child for fun. The intent conveyed behind something that is considered good is that good is a 'positive' state, and a positive state is what should be. Of course, knowing objective what a positive state is and how to evaluate it is a tall order. But few disagree that what is good should 'should be' while what is bad 'should not be'.

This leads me to point 1:

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

So, you can feel free to disagree with my definition, but put what you think works best in its place. Can it avoid the decent into asking if there should be existence at all?

This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm going to try with you one more time. This smacks of a petty ego that is jealous or envious that this post is so popular. Don't. What's important is a good discussion, not a post that has a bunch of replies.

Again, I have invited you to discuss with me as an equal. I'm listening to your points with respect, asking questions, and trying to answer yours the best I can. And you spit on me. I treat you like an equal, and you act like an inferior. Because only an inferior descends into ego and insults when trying to have a discussion with an equal. This is not Youtube, Reddit, or any other place on the internet. This is a place where people get to discuss intellectual topics and think about things. If you cannot rise to that, then I am sorry I ever thought you could. One last chance. Lose the derision and I will continue to discuss with you respectfully. If not, then I was mistaken and I will end this conversation.

You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though — DifferentiatingEgg

1. I have never mentioned anything from Plato.
2. "Moved on" is not an argument.

If you see something I'm saying is illogical, just point it out, and why its illogical. If you want to note its like Plato, point out how exactly it is like Plato, and why Plato had difficulty with this concept. As it is, this didn't say anything useful to the discussion.

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing.
— Philosophim

Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought. — DifferentiatingEgg

You only took half the quote in a catered reply to another forum member. You left off the last sentence:

This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself. — Philosophim

And what was I referencing? The conclusion of the argument in the OP, not an is/ought. If you want to show that I'm committing an is/ought fallacy, reference where in the OP I do this. Incomplete references to other members out of context is not an honest or viable point. This is the third time I think I've asked you to reference the OP. I'm assuming you're not stupid, so that only means you can't find an actual reference in the OP. Scrounging around anywhere else to try and back a point you find in the OP just confirms to me that you don't have a point. It might be better to admit at this point that maybe I don't have any reference in the OP that leads to an is/ought fallacy and try something else.

Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce. — DifferentiatingEgg

Tut tut. Using a straw man argument from another thread or an incomplete quote out of context to make your point is the farce. I'm trying to be more polite about it. I ask you again to be an equal with me and bring that same politeness and respect to the conversation.

Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over.

I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists.

But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.

That existence should be.

How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists?

Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be...

I cant bridge this...

"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence.

In fact every term in your argument shifts around...

Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be

Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence...
Straight fallacy. That's how you move the goalpost... your definitions are all interchangeable with each other and are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.

Also good goes from description to prescription in your model. As 180 Proof stated right off the bat... he axed one of the issues but you arrogantly blew him off cause you thought you justified your position via your circular logic.

Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion.

Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over. — DifferentiatingEgg

Not a worry, we'll tackle it that way then.

I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists. — DifferentiatingEgg

Correct, we're assuming there is an objective morality, but we aren't asserting there actually is one. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is assuming that if an objective morality exists we can find something necessarily true about it.

But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.

That existence should be.

How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists? — DifferentiatingEgg

Sure, let me go over it.

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

My point is, take any moral question and it will have a cascading set of implicit questions that have to be answered first if it is to be objective. If I'm asking whether I should steal for my own benefit, I have to first know whether I should be concerned about my own benefit. Of course, this means that I should also know if I should exist. But for me to exist, there must be matter that exists as well. Should that exist? Until eventually we ask the question, "Should anything exist at all, or should nothing?" If there is an objective morality then there are only two answers as its a binary, yes or no.

At this point, I have not declared that the answer is yes. That's the remaining letters. Does this clarify what I'm doing at this point? Any problems that you see?

Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be... — DifferentiatingEgg

To be clear, this isn't what we're asking. We're starting at a very simple base right? We can't solve calculus until we start with what the number 1 means, and then 1+1=2. I'm claiming nothing more at this point then the question of, "Should there be existence, or none?" So its important not to take anything more than that in the current OP. I build on it into something more in the second post linked in the OP, but for now, its just this one lone basic question.

"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, its an answer from a very clear yes or no question that was setup through a and b. Reread the other letters to see why "Existence should be" is the only logical answer we can give.

Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be — DifferentiatingEgg

A correction, morality is the methodology used to evaluate what is good. Good is defined as "What should be" "Existence" on its own does not necessitate that it should be. These are the definitions I start with and are not interchangeable.

Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence... — DifferentiatingEgg

None of this follows from my initial definitions, nor do I claim this. Reread it with the proper definitions I've given, not summaries of your own.

Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I am not envious of your flaw that you cannot keep a conversation civil and need to insert insults like a monkey throwing poo. I have been polite about your reading comprehension so far because the way you type indicates that English is likely your second language. Your sentences often lack clarity, appropriate detail, and I am trying my best to infer what you mean. A little self-reflection and humbleness that you may not be grasping the full context or communicating accurately what you intend may dispel YOUR delusion that you have any right to be making claims that I'm perpetually deluded.

Take what I've written here, think about it some more carefully, and write a response that is polite like a basic civilized adult. English as a second language doesn't mean you have to be a piece of trash in conversations. If the next response indicates an obvious lack of reading comprehension, straw man argument, or another monkey throwing poo session for you, my patience and this conversation will be over.

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

Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. It simply is, so you're asking meaningless questions that beg questions due to missing leaps in logic that even connect sentence 2 and 3 with "should," let alone how they connect with 1. Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, or for it to even be meaningful. Morality is a subset of the domain of existence not the other way around.

In your argument morality defines existence because it is so easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions that you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve, which we can see because good should be. Saying you don't use the Is-Ought fallacy is like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it's literally in your definitions for all to see, as plain as day as Hitler was a Nazi.

I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition for adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. Sorry mate, I'm not that dumb...

I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP.

1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be (line 2 of OP)
5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4) (and the Is-Ought fallacy)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5)
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round (morality doesn't evaluate existence)
But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence...

Complete utter nonsense.

Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:

"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"

then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence.

You should read Quine, and learn a thing about analytics.

Your argument he been a perpetuated farce of fallacy. And you're purposefully dishonest when you swap the adjectival definition of good for the noun of moral good.

Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. — DifferentiatingEgg

You don't think anyone who's lived has ever asked, "Should I be alive?" People commit suicide all the time Egg. Its a viable question of morality that is asked and should have an objective answer. Just because you're simply alive, doesn't mean that objectively you should be alive. "Should" entails that given the option in the next second to continue living or end your life, you should continue living.

Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, — DifferentiatingEgg

This isn't about justifying existence. Whether existence should be or not is irrelevent to the fact it exists.
I'm wondering if you understand this distinction in my terms, as I think you keep mixing up 'should' with 'is'. You are ironically, committing an is/ought fallacy. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should exist. So the fact that existence is, doesn't mean we can't ask the question 'But should it?" You precluding asking the question and assuming because it is, its justified in existing...is an is/ought fallacy. I am not doing this. I am separating the fact that existence is from the question of whether it should be.

In your argument morality define existence because of it being ao easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be is. — DifferentiatingEgg

This is a run on sentence that doesn't have a cohesive point. Let me break it down for you to see if I can get to what you're trying to say here.

"In your argument morality defines existence..."

No, I do not use morality to define existence. Existence is, whether it should be or not. Morality is the question of whether it should be. A separation of the is, from the ought.

"Easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use"

I've given you clear definitions in a recent post. An assertion without evidence doesn't work in a discussion like this. Maybe you're right that I have something ambiguous, but if you don't point out exactly where it is, I won't know if you are correct or had a question I can easily answer and clarify.

"Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be"

Except for the fact that I never note that the fact that existence is, is why it should be. I've told you this several times now and asked you to cite in the OP where I do this. You have not been able to, which means currently you are wrong. Point to the evidence in the OP and give your reasoning.

Please spend a little more time reviewing paragraphs like these before you post. I'm trying to figure out if this is what you're trying to say instead of you clearly communicating your intentions. Let me know if my assessment captures what you're saying, and if not, clarify more carefully please.

I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. — DifferentiatingEgg

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. Attacking something you think I'm going to say doesn't really work. If I say it, fine. But I'm not saying that.

I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is line two? This? 2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality. Part b? Please clarify.

1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be

Ok, so 1,2 and 3 are definitions. Again my definition of 1 is not "Good should be" its Good - "What should be"

You're also omitting a fairly important step, "Assume an objective morality exists." Because this is part of the argument that leads to the conclusion of 4. I conclude 4 as part of an entire argument, not simply from the definitions of 1,2, and 3.

So, no ambiguity of definitions, just set definitions and an argument that leads to the conclusion. I have yet to see you address the actual argument. That's steps c-g. That's how I conclude 4. This argument of ambiguous definitions is over unless you point out where there is ambiguity specifically, as well as this argument that I'm just concluding 4 from the definitions alone.
— DifferentiatingEgg

5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5) — DifferentiatingEgg

Lets clarify 5. Existence is, and it should be. But I do not make the claim "Because existence is, its good". I make the claim that existence is through parts c-g. 6 I'm not really making. Morality evaluates what should be. But non-existence is on the table. So it doesn't evaluate existence, but also whether existence should be.

7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round. — DifferentiatingEgg

Are you saying I do this, or are you saying this is what you believe? If you think I do this, you'll need to demonstrate where this happens in parts c-g.

But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence... — DifferentiatingEgg

No, I never make this claim. Again, as I mentioned last post, this is answering a very specific and base question. "If there is an objective morality, faced with non-existence vs existence, should existence be?" This is existence in the abstract, not quantified specifics. You're predicting where I'm going to go afterward, then criticizing me. That's wrong. If I haven't stated it, then you're arguing against something I haven't said That's a straw man. Only address the logical conclusion made at this time. Is the logical conclusion from steps c-g flawed? That's what you can reasonably criticize.

You see I divided the entire theory up into a few posts. If you look at the end of the OP, I have another section linked. This post is only meant to establish a base. The second is to explore what that means. There I introduce quantity within existence, and demonstrate that some states of existence should be over others. So no, if existence is good compared to nothing, that does not logically lead to the idea that all states of existence are equal and some states cannot be more good than others.

Complete utter nonsense. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, attacking something I didn't say is complete and utter nonsense. Work on your reading comprehension and sentence structure over sweeping assertions meant to belittle. You look like an idiot.

Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:

"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"

then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg

You could presuppose that, but you can't make a logical argument for it because of sections c-g. The conclusion that existence should be is from c-g, and since you aren't citing how c-g leads to your supposition being logically proven, its not. Please clarify what an 'occasion sentence' means as this is a nonsense phrase and not proper English.

So in summary, read parts c-g as that's the actual argument, not an argument through definitions alone.

A bunch of yip yap I see.

People commit suicide all the time Egg. — Philosophim

So necessarily existence shouldn't be...

Ty. I knew you'd say it my way eventually.

Try not moving goalposts.

And the audacity to try to use it logically against me in the beginning of your argument and then say I can't use it logically against you... to show that existence isn't necessarily only a "should be"... cognitive dissonance and fallacies with you mate.

Bye Egg. Keep working on English and logic, you'll improve with time.

Oh, I'll be around to reiterate your fallacies, no doubt you'll be bumping this snake oil in other threads when it falls flat, as you constantly do. And everyone tells you how fallacious it it and you're like.... "nah, I'm just dishonest!"