I've already told you why I disagree with it. — Janus

You've given a personal opinion, but not a refutation of the OP. Its ok, I know not everyone reads and understands the OP. Its an establishment of a base, I'll write the next steps on where we can go with this over the weekend. But I wanted to give people time and thought to digest the first part. Good conversation.

You've given a personal opinion, but not a refutation of the OP. Its ok, I know not everyone reads and understands the OP. — Philosophim

I've given an argument that in my personal opinion refutes the OP. In your personal opinion it does not refute the OP. I'd be disappointed if I had to conclude that you're one of those who reads all disagreement as misunderstanding.

I'm not convinced you really think our exchange was a good conversation; if I sincerely felt someone had not understood what I had written I would not deem it to have been a good conversation.

In any case, it's nothing personal, I wish you all the best.

I've given an argument that in my personal opinion refutes the OP. In your personal opinion it does not refute the OP. — Janus

Its not an opinion. You didn't address the arguments of the OP. No citation of the steps, nor refutation of the specific reasoning given. Its ok, not everyone wants to engage at that level.

I'm not convinced you really think our exchange was a good conversation — Janus

No, you were polite, said your peace, and wanted to go no further than that. That's a good conversation. :) No trolling, 'yelling', or insults my way. This is an open forum for all people to engage at all levels. Thanks for participating and enjoy your day!

Its not an opinion. You didn't address the arguments of the OP. No citation of the steps, nor refutation of the specific reasoning given. — Philosophim

I believe I did:

But, I'll try a different tack (which amounts to the same thing):


d. Assume the answer is no.

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. — Janus

I addressed the above and pinpointed what I thought was the salient problem with the reasoning. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, even though I thought I gave an illustrative example in the Gnostics, so I'll try one more time.

If something morally objective existed, it could not be an empirical existent. It would enjoy a different kind of existence; one which we cannot coherently imagine. Since its existence could not be an empirical one, it could conclude that there should be no empirical existence without concluding that its own existence is morally wrong, and would thus avoid contradicting itself.

If something morally objective exists it could not be an empirical existent. — Janus

That's irrelevant. Existence is "What is". I have the definitions at the top, let me know if there is any definition that needs more detail. Even if its not empirically existent, it still exists right? It would be an odd thing to say it doesn't. The question is, "Should there be existence?" Not any specific empirical, rational, metaphorical, relative, existence. Any existence at all. It is that, or nothing.

The only existence we know is our empirical existence and so the question, "should there be existence?" if it doesn't refer to that empirical existence, is meaningless.

↪Philosophim The only existence we know is our empirical existence and so the question, "should there be existence?" if it doesn't refer to that empirical existence, is meaningless. — Janus

Existence is "What is". Lets say there's another form of existence that's not empirical. It exists right? Thus the question, "Should there be existence", and its answer, does not change.

.

Existence is "What is". — Philosophim

I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll:

Lets say there's another form of existence that's not empirical. It exists right? — Philosophim

Sure, we can entertain the idea that there might be some kind of existence we have no idea of, but it's no better than fiction, in fact it's worse, because fiction is really based on our experience of this world. Moral questions concern our existence, human life as we know it to be, so when we ask whether there should be existence that question, if coherent at all, can only be coherent in reference to the human existence we know. We cannot even coherently ask moral questions about the goodness or otherwise, of animal or plant existence let alone the inanimate world, much less some existence we cannot know or even imagine at all That's my take on it, anyway.

I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. — 180 Proof

:smirk: :lol:

If we realize that all existence is good when compared to nothing, then we have an objective base to build off of. — Philosophim

Bravo! Encore!


its doable!
bleak
lol

right on
ill re-read these posts, thanks for redirecting
I dont either... agree with you here

An objective morality cannot be based on emotions, nor can it only appeal to normal or good people. — Philosophim

see sticky note moved from here 5/15/24 1154pm
" NO precondition for questioning should be enforced by anyone except the self to, for, with the self...like dont you think the precondition is the ability we have to "think before we speak" ? Isnt "thinking before speaking" a precondition to questioning? Common sense to me. Makes sense, to me! "

That's not coherent to my claim. I already mentioned if both could co-exist then both should as that's more existence. The only case in which we decide one over the other is if both cannot co-exist, or we only have the capacity to choose one over the other.


You sidestepped what I said: mentioning that both co-existing would be better doesn’t address the hypothetical I gave you. ‘What should be’ is a final consideration: it leaves out any discussion of a hierarchy of good things that never make the cut for being things which should exist. — Bob Ross

This is good to point out, bob (underlined)

There is no question that we all suffer. You view morality as a methodology of easing human suffering and providing benefits to humanity. But that's not objective. — Philosophim

good point here

But if you cannot raise it to the level of possibility or impossibility, then cogently, we can dismiss the argument as a thought that cannot be elevated enough to be a serious consideration in the argument — Philosophim

we can...

Ha ha! No worry. It needs to be challenged in every way. A claim to objectivity requires it. — Philosophim

That is excatly right, Philosophim! ONWARD!

The morality I'm looking at is the deeper morality that would give us an objective justification for concluding that humanity should flourish. The morality I'm asking would exist even if humans didn't. Its a morality that can be applied to animals, and even the non-conscious universe itself. It does not care about our personal benefit, or our cultural subjective viewpoints. — Philosophim

The confusion within some people may not understanding this part...see bold and underlined text from quote below to back this one above???

You might be missing context as the important factor. Within the context in which both can co-exist,it is good for both to co-exist. In the context in which only one can exist, it will be a greater good for one of them to exist over the other. But this second context does not universalize that the one which will not exist wouldn't be good if they could both exist.

Lets use people. An 80 year old man is out with their 5 year old grandson. As they pass by a building, an explosion happens. The still spry grandfather can leap out of the way, but his grandson will die. If he stays, he will die, but his grandson will live.

Ideally both should be able to live. But given the situation, only one can. In the situation between the grandfather and grandchild its not that the grandfather shouldn't exist, its that the best outcome within this specific situation is that the grandfather dies protecting the grandson. A moral outcome based on a limitation does not mean that we will have the same moral outcome with that limitation removed. — Philosophim

I think you are onto something here..

Now, it is the case that if nothing exists, then no standard of goodness can exist. If that's what you're getting at, that seems fine. But here, the term "exists" seems like it could also be equivocal. Do facts like 1+1=2 exist outside of created existence? Do they exist necessarily?

Well, if they do exist in a way different from how chairs and tables exist, and the standard of good exists in the way necessary facts exist, then it seems possible for it to exist while also stating that created existence "ought not exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it necessary to go this direction? ITS A DEAD END the road we take because we are blinded by confusion and thinking any relevance comes around the questioning if nothing exists path....


We can proceed here,

My question to you now is if the initial logic I've noted above seems sound. If I can get a general consensus that this seems like a logical start, I can build from here. Yes, your initial impression might be an emotional rejection or not understanding what the point is. But ignoring that, does the logic hold? — Philosophim

, and we shall BECAUSE WE CAN AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO! I did not present a rejection, I rightfully questioned the intention and ability of the person (you) who seeks to proceed with building a new process (the objection that can come from ideas presented in OP). I think you are reading into the emotions before acknowledging the character for what it is? Shame on you! You know better than that!! AND ALSO I can give a general consensus, (who else is going to? Who COULD?) because my intentions to enhance the efforts you seek to start doing, the building, are true in that I believe you are taking THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN YOUR EFFORTS presented in the OP. Are you seriously asking MEEEEEE if the logic in the OP proper??? WHO AM I TO SAY? LOOK AT THE WAY I EXPRESS MYSELF? DO YOU SEE ME USING LOGIC IN MY STYLE and EFFORTS? I dont know much or care to learn proper logic, and have said it before.. it is not required. It is not useless, it is very valuable for some people to understand "things" but that is out of my place to speak on...I will argue NOTHING "needs" to be logically correct, it needs to be real and if it is real it OUGHT to be able to be logically put from there....does that make sense or am I slow? ACTUALLY don't answer that last question.... :roll: It might contradict things if you do that, correctly...ha!


My more than general consensus exists here now and even did then (my original comment). This is my immediate responses and reactions, as they came to me in the moment while reading the thread to its end. This single comment displays in it the way I have navigated the thread and comprehended it for its worth (to me)...I am not prepared in the time I have now, as I am nearing the max limit that this single comment ought to hold. If I share my consensus (it exists already) further than this here comment, consider this the warning that it will still surface...this comment AT LEAST serves to prep the others! The sail has been set and the wind is steady coming! When the time is right, we will move on together! Until then, "yo ho yo ho, a pirates life for me!"

No objective conclusion that I know of leads to a contradiction of itself, therefore anything which is a contradiction cannot be objective. Ergo, "Existence ought to be" is the only conclusion which an objective morality could conclude. — Philosophim

Yep, seems obvious to me. What does that say about YOU? (literally anyone- lets compare)

That it exists doesn't contradict the idea that the rest of existence shouldn't exist. That would only be so if it were the creator, as the 'Gnostic' example I gave shows. According to that account the Good is a transcendent God, not the deluded demiurge who created this world. — Janus

I agree with Janus here and its clear from my initial comment...when I replied "bleak" directly to you earlier it is not personal. I also used the word when addressing Philosophim from the start its validity exists in that it is nothing more than my immediate reaction based on the effort I felt you were taking. I stand corrected, your efforts in questioning are as valid as mine. So without rejecting the aims of this post, I do want to point out I initially was on the same page as Janus and make clear - I think nothing of your character. I simply feel the words expressed on a screen that cant be trusted without making a choice.

Objective morality appeals to intuition, whilst subjective morality appeals to imagination.

Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded.

"I need you to work more' (said from Boss in an office to Worker) is a subjective moral case that was at first closed, but then opened, and awaiting conclusion.

Hunger, is an objective moral case that is always open and is awaiting conclusion. Other examples: a need for peace-making, a need for order, thirst, survival, etc.

Existence is "What is".
— Philosophim
I.e. "existence is" a sentence fragment. :roll: — 180 Proof

You know, you have a vast knowledge of philosophy and a clever mind. I keep appealing to you because I feel if you ever got into a serious discussion, you would have a lot to offer. If I'm going to propose an objective morality seriously, I need serious attacks. What I have written has never been written before. Here's a real chance to think about something new and be a part of it. My last appeal, do what you wish.

The hypothetical stated that they cannot both co-exist; but I understand what you are saying: it just doesn’t address the issue. — Bob Ross

How? I don't understand. Please give an example of the issue in another way so I can understand then. You can use the grandfather, the grandson, and the explosion to demonstrate if you wish.

1. If X creates more existence than its absence, then it is good.
2. If Y creates more existence than its absence, then it is good.
3. X creates more existence than its absence.
4. Y creates more existence than its absence.
5. X is good. (1 & 3)
6. Y is good. (2 & 4)
7. X creates more existence than Y.
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
9. X should exist, and Y should not exist. (5 & 6 & 7 & 8)
10. Y should not exist, but is good. (6 & 9)
11. Good is ‘what should be’.
12. 10 is then incoherent: Y should not exist, but it should exist. (10 restated in light of 11)

Your response, was to sidestep the issue by denying 8 and commenting on if they both could co-exist. That’s blatantly not the point.

In order for there to be a standard, there must exist already something that is morally good. If this is true, then existence cannot be that standard; because that would be circular. — Bob Ross

A logically necessary requirement for something is not a circular fallacy

I didn’t say it was circular logic: it is ontologically circular.

If what is morally good (let’s call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence (let's call it E) is not what is morally good—it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good.
To say that existence is what is morally good, would, then, to be to claim that existence is actually what makes G morally good; while G is what makes existence morally good.

Sure, we can entertain the idea that there might be some kind of existence we have no idea of, but it's no better than fiction, in fact it's worse, because fiction is really based on our experience of this world. — Janus

I was not the one who introduced the idea of non-empirical existences, you did as a counter. So then your counter to me is noted by you as fiction. Fiction does not counter what is objective. "Unicorn" arguments can be dismissed. So then we're back to the point where my points remain unchallenged. Try again! Maybe another angle? Challenge anything, the definitions through the premises to the conclusion.

Ha ha! Thank you for the pleasant post Kizzy! To your reference to Janus, the current setup is a base, and we will tackle the idea that some existences are going to be better than other. I look forward to your contributions when I post it this weekend. :)

Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded. — Barkon

That's a neat way of looking at it. Did you happen to read the OP entirely btw? Any comments, questions, or issues with what was stated? Thanks for stopping by.

@Philosophim

Actually, it is also circular logic (come to think of it). One would be saying E is morally good because of some relevant property of G, but also saying G is morally good because of some relevant property of E.

I have a different understanding of good and evil, and morality; I find most of the OP incorrect at a base level, and there is no good translation available.

Existence is ought otherwise it wouldn't be(see: the correct understanding of morality((there is not correct against(((i.e. immorality - it will always be incorrect))); you have to be moral for things to continue((((i.e. immorality in the case of survival leads to not surviving)))), and there are things ought by existence, but the fact that existence is ought doesn't necessitate anything other than it will come if things continue to be moral around the time it began. Because existence is ought implies many things, but by no means is it a 'should' other than an acknowledgement of 'existence is moral', based on that matter alone.

8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
8. Only X or Y can exist (by way of actualizing it), but not both.
9. X should exist, and Y should not exist.
10. Y should not exist, but is good. (6 & 9)
11. Good is ‘what should be’.
9. 10 is then incoherent: Y should not exist, but it should exist. (10 restated in light of 11)

Your response, was to sidestep the issue by denying 8 and commenting on if they both could co-exist. That’s blatantly not the point. — Bob Ross

I didn't think I sidestepped. I thought I addressed this with the grandfather and the grandson next to the explosion, and only one being able to live. Isn't that the situation in 8? But this does not destroy that Ideally we want all three existences to be able to co-exist. Even if there's a limitation and only one can live, it ought to be that both still live. Just because we can't generate that outcome doesn't change anything in regards to their goodness as existences.

Morality is not about the outcome, it is about what ought to be. Morality is about possibilities. In the instance of the explosion, there is no possibility of both the grandfather and grandkid coming out alive. So we evaluate the situation based on the limitations presented to us by the state prior to the explosion, and determine what the most moral outcome would be. Both the grandfather and grandson are good, but unfortunately, we cannot change the fact that one of them will die, only choose who will die.

Have you ever heard of triage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
My mother is a nurse, and its a very basic approach to care when there is not enough time and resources to treat everyone at the same time equally. A person who has third degree burns and is dying is going to be treated prior to someone who has a cut that needs stiches, but otherwise can wait. Does that make the person who has the cut unworthy of treatment? That they aren't valuable? No. Its just an assessment of understanding that given limitations, certain people have priority over others. If the hospital had unlimited resources, ideally everyone would be taken care of at the same time. If we were Gods then ideally we would let both the grandfather and grandson survive. But we are not Gods. We are mortals with limitations.

An objective morality should be able to determine what is most moral without limitations, and what is most moral given limitations. I've done that here. That should answer your point, but feel free to contest if it does not.

If what is morally good (let’s call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence is not what is morally good—it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good. — Bob Ross

Let me take the first part of your sentence.

"If what is morally good (let’s call it G) necessitates that existence is good, then existence is not what is morally good."

This is not my argument. First, its not "morally good" which necessitates anything, its an "Objective morality." Morality is an analysis of what is good. If an objective morality determines that existence is good, then existence is good.

Now lets tie in your second sentence. "it is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good"

So this now becomes, "An objective morality is good insofar as it relates to what is morally good", which is not a problem. So no circular logic.

So then we're back to the point where my points remain unchallenged. — Philosophim

Not really. A real guarantor of objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent, so your argument fails from the start unless you posit a transcendent guarantor. And, as I've pointed out, whether or not the existence of that transcendent guarantor is itself good has no bearing on whether empirical existence is good, unless that guarantor be the creator. But then you would just be arguing for theism.

Cheers matey!

A real guarantor of objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent, so your argument fails from the start unless you posit a transcendent guarantor. — Janus

1. Where is your proof that an objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent?
2. What is a transcendent guarantor and what is your proof of it?

My point is all of the above is not a proof, just an opinion with unproven statements. Not that it matters that much as...

And, as I've pointed out, whether or not the existence of that transcendent guarantor is itself good has no bearing on whether empirical existence is good — Janus

3. I will note again that I have not separated existence into different types. Meaning if there were multiple existences, I am not saying at this moment that any one existence would be morally superior or inferior to another. So you're inserting a point that I have not claimed to make. That's typically called a straw man argument, or a logical fallacy. You build up something that the person is not saying, then argue that its wrong.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists. I am stating this for the third time, and I have yet to hear an argument against this. I noted the question, "Should there be existence?" and that logically, the answer is yes. Feel free to look through the argument and demonstrate why you believe this is incorrect by refuting the logic given. But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.

Unfortunately, we are just talking past each other; and I would just be reiterating if I responded. So I will let it rest.

Take care, Philosophim! :kiss:

Where is your proof that an objective moral good could not possibly be an empirical existent? — Philosophim

There is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, so that would rule out all temporal existents. At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists. — Philosophim

That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words. The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence.

But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion. — Philosophim

You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed.

I think we are done...I, for one, am not going to continue to repeat myself.

Unfortunately, we are just talking past each other; and I would just be reiterating if I responded. So I will let it rest.

Take care, Philosophim! — Bob Ross

You too Bob! I'll have the second part posted this weekend, we can touch base again for the second part to see if that resolves your issue.

There is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. — Janus

Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right?

For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, — Janus

So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one.

At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis. — Janus

No. I'm pointing out that coming in and saying, "Here is my counter" does not absolve you of clearly defining and proving your counter is correct. You believe your points to be true, but you have not proven your points to be true. If they are not true, I, who have attempted to prove my points, am not countered.
If you want to counter what I've written, you need to address the logic of what is written, and demonstrate your own counter can hold up against equal criticism. And don't take it the wrong way! :) It is better to make claims, arguments and counters. Just understand and expect the same will be given back.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists.
— Philosophim

That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words — Janus

How? Are you saying that any of the descriptors of existence, transcendent, temporal, empirical etc, don't exist? I think that's pretty clear, otherwise we wouldn't call them existences. They are weighty words that make the point very clearly.

The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence. — Janus

Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion?

But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.
— Philosophim

You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. — Janus

No, I've heard clearly and addressed it clearly.

The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed. — Janus

You need to prove its incoherent, not just say it is. I have seen no proof that it is incoherent.

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP. As I've noted, its fine to have counter arguments, but they must rise beyond opinions. The OP is a proof. It rises to the same standard I am asking you to give. And now that you understand that standard, feel free to look at the OP again and hold it to the same level. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't demand of myself.

Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right? — Philosophim

True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable, but until that happens...

So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one. — Philosophim

We can't really imagine, in the sense of "form an image of" an eternal existence. We can think it as the dialectical opposite of temporal, that is all. Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical

The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence.
— Janus

Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion? — Philosophim

If it wasn't universal, then it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere, if it was not eternal it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness at all times. The ideas of guaranteed universality and eternality pertain to transcendence, because nothing in or about this empirical, temproal world can be guaranteed to be universal or eternal.

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP. — Philosophim

Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here.

.

True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable — Janus

So then its possible. Do you see you keep making contradictions to yourself?

We can't really imagine, in the sense of "form an image of" an eternal existence. We can think it as the dialectical opposite of temporal, that is all. — Janus

So we can imagine without an image. Which is still just imagining something.

Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical — Janus

I'm not, I'm just using your words. I really didn't care about that part, I just wanted you to clarify what you were saying with some evidence and without contradictions. As I noted, it doesn't matter these types of existence, as it does not negate the question of, "Should there be existence?" which does not care about types. Which you still have not addressed. So again, I'm not seeing any viable counters to my points here.

If it wasn't universal, then it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere, if it was not eternal it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness at all times. — Janus

So then if I asked a question, "Should there be existence?" and I could prove the answer always has been, and will be "Yes", then would that not be an eternal guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere? Wouldn't that be transcendent then?

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP.
— Philosophim

Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here. — Janus

Its fine, as I noted not everyone likes to go to that level, but that is the level that's expected for me to consider my points countered. And believe me, I've been countered before and owned up to it. I appreciate your contributions Janus. I'll be putting a second part out this weekend that may clear up some questions and further the thinking if you're interested.

We have objectives, for example, we are given the natural order to survive. Sometimes our decisions are relating to natural orders(such as survival).

There's an element of objectivity to our lives, there are things we must do, logic gates we must pass to experience(hunger, thirst, peace-making, aggression, etc). If we are immoral concerning these logic gates, we won't be able to experience the good.

Initiating existence was once a natural order, it was once the reason we ought be moral.