Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The argument of Moral objectivity

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:24:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A quick and dirty proof of Moral objectivism 1.1

What I mean by quick and dirty is that I have a much longer and thorough version. I don't want to add more complexity then necessary.

Remember I am giving a Fresh philosophical argument. Aka Straight from the Hill! Aka original philosophy
So an appeal to authority is useless.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us

P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!

I am a defender of moral objectivism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:29:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

Your justification from this came from nowhere. Hume's objection is still valid, but you basically dismissed it as a non-existent problem. Moreover, you replied to the objection "but the good is relative to different people" by saying "I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie" by leaving the only variable that good comes from "within us". From this:

P1 - Goodness comes from ourselves
P2 - Some people get 'good' from a certain film ; others do not
C1 - Therefore, good is dependent on the person, therefore good is relative.


The Goodness in us

P1. All sentient beings have Feelings

Hasty generalisation based on the empirical knowledge of a single species, but it's not a necessary premise, so we'll ignore it for the purpose of the argument.

P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling

In the entire discourse, this was unjustified, and simply said it "is", and Hume's objection was ignored. Also, I'd refer to Moore's objection to this.

C1. All Humans have goodness/value

Doesn't logically follow "value" or "goodness". Needs a premise in there suggesting all humans have all feelings, which would be empirically and rationally objectable. In fact, if P1 - Sentient beings have a moral sense P2 - humans are sentient, C1 - Therefore, humans have a moral sense would probably fulfil this purpose.

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness

Unjustified, see above.

C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

Doesn't logically follow, until we assume Platonic forms.

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!


I am a defender of moral objectivism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:31:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I forgot to mention no hate replies pls.. I will answer you questions though.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:34:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
P.S I use the word assume in the same way I use the word presuppose.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:02:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your justification from this came from nowhere.

The Fool: This is not a demonstration of anything.

Hawkings: Hume's objection is still valid, but you basically dismissed it as a non-existent problem.

The Fool: Nor is this. Please read the entire argument more slowly next time.

Hawkings: Moreover, you replied to the objection "but the good is relative to different people" by saying "I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not.

The Fool: Firstly, it's not moreover because you didn't demonstrate anything yet. I answered the objection by demonstrating the difference between what triggers the good vs what is good in itself.

I said a lot more then ‘I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not.' Pls refer to the text in the first post. Thank you.

This is what I actually said:

"You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film."

Hawkings: Hasty generalisation based on the empirical knowledge of a single species, but it's not a necessary premise, so we'll ignore it for the purpose of the argument.

The Fool: it's a categorical premise, that sentient being has feelings. Ala a logical deduction, not an induction. There is nothing empirical about it. Again please give argument that are faithful to the text in the first post, unless I post and update. Thank You.

Hawkings:In fact, if P1 - Sentient beings have a moral sense P2 - humans are sentient, C1 - Therefore, humans have a moral sense would probably fulfil this purpose.

The Fool: you need rationality to be moral. All animals are sentient but we can't expect a Tiger to be moral because they are not necessary rational.

Again pls try and stick the text and give it a faithful reading, so this could be more productive.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:03:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:46:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:02:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Your justification from this came from nowhere.

The Fool: This is not a demonstration of anything.

Hawkings: Hume's objection is still valid, but you basically dismissed it as a non-existent problem.

The Fool: Nor is this. Please read the entire argument more slowly next time.

No, you still dismissed it as a non-existent problem. How about applying the principle of charity? You haven't sufficiently explained the justification here for dismissing the ought-is gap.

Hawkings: Moreover, you replied to the objection "but the good is relative to different people" by saying "I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not.

The Fool: Firstly, it's not moreover because you didn't demonstrate anything yet.

It's a second point. I'm not rebutting, I am saying you need to justify. Otherwise it's just a series of assertions, not an argument.

I answered the objection by demonstrating the difference between what triggers the good vs what is good in itself.

No, you simply said that there's a difference between the good and what is good in itself.

I said a lot more then ‘I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not.' Pls refer to the text in the first post. Thank you.

This is what I actually said:

"You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film."

Yes. This comes across as: One may enjoy a movie, and another person may not. The good must therefore not come from the movie, as the good from it would be the same for everyone else. Therefore, the goodness comes from within us. We call a movie good as it makes us feel good. But good is something which is dependent on us, not the film. Which to me, sounds like an argument for relativity.

Hawkings: Hasty generalisation based on the empirical knowledge of a single species, but it's not a necessary premise, so we'll ignore it for the purpose of the argument.

The Fool: it's a categorical premise, that sentient being has feelings. Ala a logical deduction, not an induction. There is nothing empirical about it. Again please give argument that are faithful to the text in the first post, unless I post and update. Thank You.

I'll make this incredibly clear: how do you justify that sentient beings have feelings? When you justify this, it comes down to knowledge of humans, and extrapolating to absurdity.

Hawkings:In fact, if P1 - Sentient beings have a moral sense P2 - humans are sentient, C1 - Therefore, humans have a moral sense would probably fulfil this purpose.

The Fool: you need rationality to be moral. All animals are sentient but we can't expect a Tiger to be moral because they are not necessary rational.

Then add that to your argument, instead of skipping numerous steps.

Again pls try and stick the text and give it a faithful reading, so this could be more productive.

Clarity is clear here: you seem to be arguing for something without giving it adequate justification. It doesn't help when you don't refer to what you're trying to justify each time. I'd go back to using the Premise Premise Conclusion system, so your argument is clearer: it is easy to see your arguments as justifying completely different things.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:44:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire, We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

The Fool: The answer is simple, OUGHT IS, if it was not then you couldn't be talking about it in the first place now could you. And I demonstrated what oughtness is. You have ill intentions

Ike: For lets say I have a hypothical imperative. We would say if you want to cross this river you should make a boat.

Kleptin: But why should you do anything?

The Fool: Because you desire it, All shouldness from based of emotional desire.
Oughtness = shouldness

Hawking's: No, you still dismissed it as a non-existent problem. You haven't sufficiently explained the justification here for dismissing the ought-is gap.

The Fool: No Hawking its as clear as it gets.

Hawking's: How about applying the principle of charity?

The Fool: It is also clear by many of your responses that you have hateful intentions, if you post like this again I make a thread of all you hateful post and report them.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself
Hawkings: No, you simply said that there's a difference between the good and what is good in itself.

VS the actual quote.,..AGAIN: "You(Keplin) are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Hawkings: But good is something which is dependent on us, not the film.
The Fool: I am saying it is a part of you. I think maybe you are confusing that our biology, knowledge, and conditioning, can make a different in how certain this trigger positivity in us, l

Hawkings: Which to me, sounds like or comes across an argument for relativity.

The Fool: I am not interested in sound like, comes across, seemingly, perhaps, kinda, probability. I only care about what it is. Obviously I am rejecting the relative objection. Pls read it consider it making sense if it doesn't then comeback. And object, I will be glad to explain. But pls make sure you understand it well. All the answers to your question are in the argument already.

Hawking: I'll make this incredibly clear: how do you justify that sentient beings have feelings? When you justify this, it comes down to knowledge of humans, and extrapolating to absurdity.

The Fool: It was clear the first time and I answered it the first time. it's a categorical premise, that sentient being has feelings. Ala a logical deduction, not an induction. There is nothing empirical about it. Again please give argument that are faithful to the text in the first post, unless I post and update. Thank You.

Hawkings:In fact, if P1 - Sentient beings have a moral sense P2 - humans are sentient, C1 - Therefore, humans have a moral sense would probably fulfil this purpose.

The Fool: you need rationality to be moral. All animals are sentient but we can't expect a Tiger to be moral because they are not necessary rational. Therefore that is a bad argument you are suggesting. Its not necessary in my argument to mention, it is you that are adding information which is not there. Where do you read empirical, or science, anywhere in my argument?

Hawking: Clarity is clear here: you seem to be arguing for something without giving it adequate justification. It doesn't help when you don't refer to what you're trying to justify each time. I'd go back to using the Premise Premise Conclusion system, so your argument is clearer: it is easy to see your arguments as justifying completely different things.

The Fool: please don't touch it. You don't even understand it now. I already have a logical version. With a more powerful logical system, then you could know right now. Unless of you have written your own logic.

Any manipulation of The Fools, argument is not that of the Fool, and does not represent my proof, has no representation of what The Fool is saying.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:14:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can you give an example to back up where I've been hateful in any of my comments? I've been trying to help you with showing where your argument is weak on the explanatory front, and instead you've just said I am wrong, throwing ad hom and strawmen.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:31:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:14:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Can you give an example to back up where I've been hateful in any of my comments?

I've been trying to help you with showing where your argument is weak on the explanatory front, and instead you've just said I am wrong, throwing ad hom and strawmen.

The Fool: I appreciate the help, that is purpose of puting it up for objections. But I know you are more intellegent then that. I am giving that much respect, and you ought to give it back. <(:D) However every question you ask has been in the version. 1.1 already. And they have also not been based from what I have said. My proof is simply shown by requoting what I have said in relation to what you say I said. I shouldn't be able to do that, if you were faithfully representing my argument. And as for the hostility its been going on sense the post-modernism disagreement. I will demonstate the hate claims there. And again you havent demonstated Strawment or any ad homs. Show me such question and i will account for them accordingly. but till then I ask again. Can you respond more respectfully.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:11:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:31:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 7:14:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Can you give an example to back up where I've been hateful in any of my comments?

I've been trying to help you with showing where your argument is weak on the explanatory front, and instead you've just said I am wrong, throwing ad hom and strawmen.

The Fool: I appreciate the help, that is purpose of puting it up for objections. But I know you are more intellegent then that. I am giving that much respect, and you ought to give it back. <(:D) However every question you ask has been in the version. 1.1 already. And they have also not been based from what I have said. My proof is simply shown by requoting what I have said in relation to what you say I said. I shouldn't be able to do that, if you were faithfully representing my argument. And as for the hostility its been going on sense the post-modernism disagreement. I will demonstate the hate claims there. And again you havent demonstated Strawment or any ad homs. Show me such question and i will account for them accordingly. but till then I ask again. Can you respond more respectfully.

I have responded quite clearly, and instead you have just stated you addressed it. You haven't though, and respond by saying " It is also clear by many of your responses that you have hateful intentions, if you post like this again I make a thread of all you hateful post and report them", and that you have said so in the text. However, your arguments have not addressed these points. If you would actually reconstruct your argument to be more clear (which you did at one point, although you did state afterwards that you said that in the text), then your argument would be more easily accepted. Instead, it's a muddle of unclear argument, with unsubstantiated claims appearing from nowhere.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:12:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am also going to take in consider clarification on some of the things you said, to avoid any ambiguities. I am not ignoring, it. But you just message me personally. About small clarifications.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:14:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and please do not threaten me that you will report me for being hateful: either do so or do not. Hollow threats aren't something that improve the community.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:58:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The stats speak for themselves.

Attack 1: Your justification from this came from nowhere.
Defense: Bold assertion

Attack 2: Hume's objection is still valid,

Defender: Bold assertion

Attack 3: you basically dismissed it as a non-existent problem.
Defense: Bold assertion. Did I or did I not and if show me where, is not "basically" in logic.

Attack 4: you replied to the objection "but the good is relative to different people" by saying "I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie" by leaving the only variable that good comes from "within us". From this:

P1 - Goodness comes from ourselves
P2 - Some people get 'good' from a certain film ; others do not
C1 - Therefore, good is dependent on the person, therefore good is relative.

Defense: Strawman. (I gave a quote of what I said vs what you said I said) They are not the same.

Attack 5: Its Hasty generalisation based on the empirical knowledge of a single species, but it's not a necessary premise, so we'll ignore it for the purpose of the argument.

Defense: Strawman. There is nothing in the argument that even hints around any inductive claim what so ever.

Attack 6: P2. Humans are sentient being P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
In the entire discourse, this was unjustified, and simply said it "is", and Hume's objection was ignored.

Defence: Strawman. I said specifically:

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: That is we ought to do what is good.

.
Attack 7: It Doesn't logically follow "value" or "goodness".

Defense: It's been argued for in the dialectic, I demonstrate what value is already.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. (aka emotional affect)

.
Attack 8: Needs a premise in there suggesting all humans have all feelings, which would be empirically and rationally objectable.

Defense: no its doesn't. If they didn't have feelings they would be zombies not human. Moreover I did say it anyways Sentience=feelings. P2. Humans are sentient being

Attack 9: In fact, if P1 - Sentient beings have a moral sense P2 - humans are sentient, C1 - Therefore, humans have a moral sense would probably fulfil this purpose.

Defense: P1 would be false rationality is required for morality. Humans are rational sentient animals. E.g. tiger are sentient but moral, because they are not as rational.

Hawkings: Also, I'd refer to Moore's objection to this.

The Fool: Been there done that a long time ago, and I am rejecting him. Remember it's not new to me. I could spot an undergrad from a mile away. Stop it.

C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

Attack 11: Doesn't logically follow, until we assume Platonic forms

Defense: Plato's form are concepts, concepts are of that of the mind. The Form of The Good was justified as positive affect; there are no bold assumptions here. It clearly states before the argument the following. You must be completely ignoring information.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:03:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Attack 12: No, you still dismissed it as a non-existent problem.
Defense: redundant. Bold assertion.

Attack 13: How about applying the principle of charity?
Defense: Ad hom(personal attack between the Fool and Hawking) You should have done that before objection. That is were is was and is supposed to be used.

Attack 14: You haven't sufficiently explained the justification here for dismissing the ought-is gap.
Defense: Yes I have a few times.

Attack 15 It's a second point. I'm not rebutting, I am saying you need to justify. Otherwise it's just a series of assertions, not an argument.
Defense: Slander (insulting intention) you mean like your argument now. I answered the objection by demonstrating the difference between what triggers the good vs what is good in itself.

Attack 16: you simply said that there's a difference between the good and what is good in itself.
Defense: Strawman I gave you the quote showing the strawman already
This is what I actually said AGAIN:
"You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film."

Attack 17: Yes. This comes across as: One may enjoy a movie, and another person may not. The good must therefore not come from the movie, as the good from it would be the same for everyone else. Therefore, the goodness comes from within us. We call a movie good as it makes us feel good. But good is something which is dependent on us, not the film. Which to me, sounds like an argument for relativity.

Defence: Red herring. There is no seems, or comes across, or sounds like that in logic. That is not what I said and that that. Strawman

Attack 20: I'll make this incredibly clear: how do you justify that sentient beings have feelings?
Defence: ad hom(I am not stupid it was clear but it was wrong) Again its been clearly justified twice read the response first.

Attack 21: When you justify this, it comes down to knowledge of humans, and extrapolating to absurdity.
Defence: Slander(insulting intention)False I justified already, secondly your extrapolating to absurdity is false as well. But that is another thread.

Attack 22 : Then add that to your argument, instead of skipping numerous steps.

Defence: Slander(insulting intention) and its false, and because already a part of the dialect. Again pls try and stick the text and give it a faithful reading, so this could be more productive.

Attack 23: Clarity is clear here: you seem to be arguing for something without giving it adequate justification. ~

Defense: thank I feel much clearer now. But you need to show where and why a particular part needs justifying. You must justify you objections just as well.

Attack 24: I have responded quite clearly, and instead you have just stated you addressed it.
Defend: and I will say again, read the replies.

Attack 25: You haven't though, and respond by saying " It is also clear by many of your responses that you have hateful intentions, if you post like this again I make a thread of all you hateful post and report them",
Defence: Red Herring, That response had to do with a personal attack.

Attack 26: However, your arguments have not addressed these points.
Defense: ready it properly I have responded to everything.

Attack 27: If you would actually reconstruct your argument to be more clear (which you did at one point, although you did state afterwards that you said that in the text). Your argument would be more easily accepted.

Defense: Slander (insulting intention) It's not about acceptance it's about the ability to defend it against logical refutation. Secondly, its not part of the argument. Red Herring.

Attack 28: Instead, it's a muddle of unclear argument, with unsubstantiated claims appearing from nowhere.

Defense: Slander(insulting intention)

Attack 24: You haven't though, and respond by saying, and that you have said so in the text. However, your arguments have not addressed these points. If you would actually reconstruct your argument to be more clear (which you did at one point, although you did state afterwards that you said that in the text), then your argument would be more easily accepted. Instead, it's a muddle of unclear argument, with unsubstantiated claims appearing from nowhere.

Attack 25: been trying to help you with showing where your argument is weak on the explanatory front, and instead you've just said I am wrong, throwing ad hom and strawmen.

Defence: there has still yet to be any demonstration of ad hom, or strawman by The attacker. All he has to do is quote.

The Fool: I am also going to take in consider clarification on some of the things you said, to avoid any ambiguities. I am not ignoring, it. But you just message me personally. About small clarifications.

Hawkings response: Oh, and please do not threaten me that you will report me for being hateful: either do so or do not.

The Fool: Red Herring.

Hawkings: Hollow threats aren't something that improve the community.
The Fool: Ad hom!! If you don't say something constructive you will be ignored, I am only answering to objection from you that are relevant to the argument at hand.

As stated The Fool is a proud defender of Morality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:06:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
stats:
27 false claims by The Hawk
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:08:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You threatened me by saying you would file a complaint. If you do not go through with it, then it's hollow. Ergo, a hollow threat.

The rest of the "attacks" come down to you simply dismissing them for no valid reason, other than claiming 'bold assertion'. I would try to reform your arguments, instead of just saying that it is nonexistent.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:14:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:24:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A quick and dirty proof of Moral objectivism 1.1

What I mean by quick and dirty is that I have a much longer and thorough version. I don't want to add more complexity then necessary.

Remember I am giving a Fresh philosophical argument. Aka Straight from the Hill! Aka original philosophy
So an appeal to authority is useless.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us

P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!


I am a defender of moral objectivism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.

I completely agree with everything you said except your definition of "good." I would, instead, posit that it is what is "correct or more correct."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:52:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:08:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You threatened me by saying you would file a complaint. If you do not go through with it, then it's hollow. Ergo, a hollow threat.

The rest of the "attacks" come down to you simply dismissing them for no valid reason, other than claiming 'bold assertion'. I would try to reform your arguments, instead of just saying that it is nonexistent.

OFF TOPIC
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:52:38 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:08:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You threatened me by saying you would file a complaint. If you do not go through with it, then it's hollow. Ergo, a hollow threat.

The rest of the "attacks" come down to you simply dismissing them for no valid reason, other than claiming 'bold assertion'. I would try to reform your arguments, instead of just saying that it is nonexistent.

OFF TOPIC

28 For The Hawk
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:57:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:14:38 AM, Ren wrote:



I completely agree with everything you said except your definition of "good." I would, instead, posit that it is what is "correct or more correct."

Correct or more correct is what we call the moral action.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:17:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Small clarification up date:

Clarification for the OUGHT IS argument.

Attack 6: You simply said it "is", and Hume's objection was ignored. (Hawkings)

Defence: it was in the dialectic.
Clarification:

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: That is we ought to do what is good.

.
Clarification for The Form of The Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

Attack 7: It Doesn't logically follow "value" or "goodness".(Hawking)
Defense: It's been argued for in the dialectic, I demonstrate what value is already.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. (aka emotional affect)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:24:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A quick and dirty proof of Moral objectivism 1.1

What I mean by quick and dirty is that I have a much longer and thorough version. I don't want to add more complexity then necessary.

Remember I am giving a Fresh philosophical argument. Aka Straight from the Hill! Aka original philosophy
So an appeal to authority is useless.

Even if you disagree with my definitions it doesn't matter. For then let the words I use be F-words in the sense that if you don't agree with my version then consider it another new word. . For let's say you disagree with my definition of Rationality then call mine F-rationality. Therefore F-rationality would then be what I am talking about.

The idea here is Purpose of language is to communicate our ideas. If a word doesn't match the idea you want to communicate then it serves no purpose to you.

Creating definition is an art. The definer of a word could never be wrong about their own definition, for it is their very idea which is invested in it. But the can however, be bad definitions. The idea of a definition is to accurately describe reality. By accuracy I mean with precision. Aka vague definitions are bad.

A Fool's Reason:

P1 Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency

P2 Knowledge:
Accumulated non-contradictory useful (applicable, aka can be used as a tool) information.

e.g.: what makes explanation useful is its ability to predict.

P3 Desires/motivations:
Emotions

C1Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

A dialogue of Morality
Socrates: Everybody wants the good, it's just a matter of ignorance of how to achieve it.

Kant: So then we may say that our freedom is the ability to use your Reason.

Ike: for what?

Socrates: The Good.

David human: But how do you get and ought from an is?

The Fool: Ought IS

Socrates: That is we ought to what is good.

Ike: but what is it?

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

Socrates: And what we all desire is the Good.

Ike: But what is the Good?

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

Kleptin: but the good is relative to different people.

The Fool: You are conflating, that which stimulates good with the good in itself. I may enjoy a particular movie and you may not. But the good itself is not in the movie. If this was true the movie would radiate goodness outward and everybody would like the same thing. That is in us. We call a movie good when it's been associated with the goodness felt in us. But the Good is not in the movie film.

Ike: But Money has value and most people consider it good.

The Fool: But it is a logical fallacy to that the good is a physical object. Money can stimulate the good, if used properly. But the actual value is the good that come out of the use in of what you spend your money on. You could blow it all on a bad drug trip over the summer, or you may buy something that makes you and/or others feel happy for years.

Ike: But money makes me happy

The Fool: Ah!. For let's say you have 100000000000 dollars. But what you spend it on can't be used or seen. If money was worth something alone then it should still be just as valuable under these conditions.

Kant: That is your Reason will affect how well you choose what you buy to get value out of it.

Socrates: But the real value is the Good. And that straight from the grave!

The Form of the Good
The Good/Ends/value/worth: that is the good is emotional satisfaction. Aka positive affect

The Goodness in us

P1. All sentient beings have Feelings
P2. Humans are sentient being
P3. The Good/value is a Feeling
C1. All Humans have goodness/value

The deduction of equality:
P1. Good=Good
P2. All Humans have goodness
C1. The goodness/value of itself in human=the goodness/value of itself in another human

A Categorical Imperative (in a nut shell)
P1. Your positive (good) and negative (bad) affect (value) is as worthy as anyone else's
P2. Thus it is logical,(rational) that we act in accordance with this equality in mind.

Kant: Thus it is by logic a moral Law, and to break it is to contradict the value of your own worth.
That is the foundation Objective Moral Law. Straight from the Enlightenment!

The Fool: All hail the Enlightenment!


I am a defender of moral objectivism. Pls give argumentative objections only. Positive affirmations are always welcome too. Mind you I do this in hast. So I most likely will be given better, fuller and bugfree versions over the next while.

You are very confused as to the nature of emotions.

Emotions are a heuristic system which can prime us to act in specific ways that can be either in favor of or CONTRARY to rational self-interest.

Emotional signaling were set by evolutionary conditions different from today. If you think of pushing someone off a bridge, your emotions go "no, that's bad."

If you think of pushing a button which drops a lever which opens a door which leads to a man falling off a bridge, your emotions go "oh...whatever."

Emotional signaling acts in complement AND in contradiction to our ability to make rational decisions. Scenarios will dampen or enhance the ability of emotions to influence our choices.

To base morality off of emotions is to be as close to subjectivism as you can possibly be.

Every individual has unique neurology with SIMILAR moral cognitive systems. Even the most universal neurological finding only becomes applicable in large study groups.

Our "desires" are set by multiple cognitive systems. Our desire to be rich one day may conflict with our immediate desire to buy a hi-def television.

Those desires are BOTH emotionally connected, but one desire is longer-term and the other is shorter-term.

To get even MORE complex, your emotional reaction to a scenario can change by the PRESENCE of others. What you might consider not funny alone seems funny when in a crowd. What seems like too terrifying to consider when in a crowd feels fine alone. Humans self-herd themselves to conform to groups using emotions and other subconscious systems.

Think about jealousy. A psychologically normal astronaught, when made jealous, can end up driving cross country with a bb gun and diapers to attack the woman her spouse is sleeping with (true story).

THAT'S your gauge?

You need to do a lot of study in neurology and cognitive science before you try something like this.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Pls try and refute the actual premises, it's not a scientist argument at all. Also please ask me if you don't think I know something first. Cognitive Science is the worst possible topics of all academics in the world you that are there for you to possible pick.. You are better of assuming I don't know philosophy. <(:D) and pls be more respectful with you objections.

You are very confused as to the nature of emotions.

Emotions are a heuristic system which can prime us to act in specific ways that can be either in favor of or CONTRARY to rational self-interest.

Emotional signaling were set by evolutionary conditions different from today. If you think of pushing someone off a bridge, your emotions go "no, that's bad."

If you think of pushing a button which drops a lever which opens a door which leads to a man falling off a bridge, your emotions go "oh...whatever."

Emotional signaling acts in complement AND in contradiction to our ability to make rational decisions. Scenarios will dampen or enhance the ability of emotions to influence our choices.

To base morality off of emotions is to be as close to subjectivism as you can possibly be.

Every individual has unique neurology with SIMILAR moral cognitive systems. Even the most universal neurological finding only becomes applicable in large study groups.

Our "desires" are set by multiple cognitive systems. Our desire to be rich one day may conflict with our immediate desire to buy a hi-def television.

Those desires are BOTH emotionally connected, but one desire is longer-term and the other is shorter-term.

To get even MORE complex, your emotional reaction to a scenario can change by the PRESENCE of others. What you might consider not funny alone seems funny when in a crowd. What seems like too terrifying to consider when in a crowd feels fine alone. Humans self-herd themselves to conform to groups using emotions and other subconscious systems.

Think about jealousy. A psychologically normal astronaught, when made jealous, can end up driving cross country with a bb gun and diapers to attack the woman her spouse is sleeping with (true story).

THAT'S your gauge?

You need to do a lot of study in neurology and cognitive science before you try something like this.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:14:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:38:16 PM, Wnope wrote:

The Fool: also please read the argument first, let it sit and contemplate it and then come up with a refutation. Dont force one. I am looking for honest critiscm. That is why the argument is here. Also not it is a shorter simplified version. So yea ask me if I didnt know something first. Thanks
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:17:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:10:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Pls try and refute the actual premises, it's not a scientist argument at all. Also please ask me if you don't think I know something first. Cognitive Science is the worst possible topics of all academics in the world you that are there for you to possible pick.. You are better of assuming I don't know philosophy. <(:D) and pls be more respectful with you objections.


You are very confused as to the nature of emotions.

Emotions are a heuristic system which can prime us to act in specific ways that can be either in favor of or CONTRARY to rational self-interest.

Emotional signaling were set by evolutionary conditions different from today. If you think of pushing someone off a bridge, your emotions go "no, that's bad."

If you think of pushing a button which drops a lever which opens a door which leads to a man falling off a bridge, your emotions go "oh...whatever."

Emotional signaling acts in complement AND in contradiction to our ability to make rational decisions. Scenarios will dampen or enhance the ability of emotions to influence our choices.

To base morality off of emotions is to be as close to subjectivism as you can possibly be.

Every individual has unique neurology with SIMILAR moral cognitive systems. Even the most universal neurological finding only becomes applicable in large study groups.

Our "desires" are set by multiple cognitive systems. Our desire to be rich one day may conflict with our immediate desire to buy a hi-def television.

Those desires are BOTH emotionally connected, but one desire is longer-term and the other is shorter-term.

To get even MORE complex, your emotional reaction to a scenario can change by the PRESENCE of others. What you might consider not funny alone seems funny when in a crowd. What seems like too terrifying to consider when in a crowd feels fine alone. Humans self-herd themselves to conform to groups using emotions and other subconscious systems.

Think about jealousy. A psychologically normal astronaught, when made jealous, can end up driving cross country with a bb gun and diapers to attack the woman her spouse is sleeping with (true story).

THAT'S your gauge?

You need to do a lot of study in neurology and cognitive science before you try something like this.

You may know philosophy, but you are grandly misinformed about the nature of emotions as they connect to desires.

To link emotional satisfaction to goal-driven behavior is overly simplistic and leads to contradictory behavior such as in the trolley problem.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:17:51 PM, Wnope wrote:

You may know philosophy, but you are grandly misinformed about the nature of emotions as they connect to desires.

The Fool: See if you are saying that you couldn't even have read what I just wrote. So pls stop that.

To link emotional satisfaction to goal-driven behavior is overly simplistic and leads to contradictory behavior such as in the trolley problem.

The Fool: Please read the argument more carefully, before you respond.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:27:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Ought IS

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

So you never said that emotional desires are linked to the good (which would entail a positive goal accomplished)?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
The Fool: Ought IS

The Fool: Ought is the emotional desire. Aka Sentient Desire,We do things to satisfy our desires. e.g. eat, sleep, mate, love, live, laugh, create.

The Fool: The Good is the satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

So you never said that emotional desires are linked to the good (which would entail a positive goal accomplished)?

The Fool: yes its all in there. Read slowly plse
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*please note that the things written in Fool's dialogue are not my words
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault