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
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
↪Philosophim I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue: — Relativist
↪Philosophim I read the entire post. Regretfully. — Relativist
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
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
Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. — DifferentiatingEgg
"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
↪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
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
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
↪Philosophim Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought. — DifferentiatingEgg
And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be" — DifferentiatingEgg
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
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
You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though — DifferentiatingEgg
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
This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself. — Philosophim
Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce. — DifferentiatingEgg
Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over. — DifferentiatingEgg
I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
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
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
"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg
Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be — DifferentiatingEgg
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
Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion. — DifferentiatingEgg
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. — DifferentiatingEgg
Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, — DifferentiatingEgg
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
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 easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
Complete utter nonsense. — DifferentiatingEgg
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
People commit suicide all the time Egg. — Philosophim
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.