Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Is life inherently valuable/meaningful?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning. I set up a bunch of "fly ribbons" in my room a few hours ago which have ended the lives of at least a few dozen flies. In this case, almost all people capable of having an opinion on the matter think that I am justified in killing as many flies as I want to, just because they are annoyances to me. Almost everyone feels justified in killing any mosquito or ant that they see, even if it is not bothering them.

Clearly, in terms of the value we assign to the lives of human beings, we make distinctions. Killing innocent humans is supposed to be wrong because humans possess certain qualities that bugs such as flies and ants do not. The most notable to me are a human's ability to think and feel, that is to be a rational agent with interests that they can perceive (one of the most basic being the avoidance of pain/suffering).

If this is the case, what is it that makes it wrong to end the life of a human fetus which cannot yet think or feel? And what it is that makes it right, or at least not wrong, to murder thinking and feeling animals by the millions so that we may eat them or wear them? If human life is more valuable because humans can think and feel, then the life of any other animal that can think and feel - reason about things, have interests, want to avoid suffering (this being the most crucial factor) - should be just as valuable. After all, we should not consider human life arbitrarily more valuable because we happen to be humans; this is speceism, or, the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections/considerations afforded to humans, and this is almost always a blatant prejudice with no reasonable defense.

So, I guess my point is as follows - We all agree that life is not inherently valuable because there are certain animal that we don't even think twice about killing even in mass numbers. However, we all agree that doing the same to human beings is one of the worst, most heinous crime one could commit. What is it that makes the morality of killing tons of flies and killing a human on the opposite ends of the moral spectrum? And can there be any rational reason for not affording the value of life we hold for humans to other animals who have functioning brains and who want to have pleasure and not suffering?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 8:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning. I set up a bunch of "fly ribbons" in my room a few hours ago which have ended the lives of at least a few dozen flies. In this case, almost all people capable of having an opinion on the matter think that I am justified in killing as many flies as I want to, just because they are annoyances to me. Almost everyone feels justified in killing any mosquito or ant that they see, even if it is not bothering them.

Clearly, in terms of the value we assign to the lives of human beings, we make distinctions. Killing innocent humans is supposed to be wrong because humans possess certain qualities that bugs such as flies and ants do not. The most notable to me are a human's ability to think and feel, that is to be a rational agent with interests that they can perceive (one of the most basic being the avoidance of pain/suffering).

If this is the case, what is it that makes it wrong to end the life of a human fetus which cannot yet think or feel? And what it is that makes it right, or at least not wrong, to murder thinking and feeling animals by the millions so that we may eat them or wear them? If human life is more valuable because humans can think and feel, then the life of any other animal that can think and feel - reason about things, have interests, want to avoid suffering (this being the most crucial factor) - should be just as valuable. After all, we should not consider human life arbitrarily more valuable because we happen to be humans; this is speceism, or, the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections/considerations afforded to humans, and this is almost always a blatant prejudice with no reasonable defense.

So, I guess my point is as follows - We all agree that life is not inherently valuable because there are certain animal that we don't even think twice about killing even in mass numbers. However, we all agree that doing the same to human beings is one of the worst, most heinous crime one could commit. What is it that makes the morality of killing tons of flies and killing a human on the opposite ends of the moral spectrum? And can there be any rational reason for not affording the value of life we hold for humans to other animals who have functioning brains and who want to have pleasure and not suffering?

Poorly worded; I should have said functioning, highly developed brains, like the ones dogs and cats and monkeys have. Not very basic brains like the ones flies have.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are genetic pressures to both having a personal interest in the survival of as many humans as possible and in the killing of as many disease-ridden insects as possible.

When one acts as a programmed robot, he kills flies without hesitation. When one acts with conciousness, he spares the fly and smacks the human.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.

Changed my mind on this. Happiness (among other goods) is intrinsically valuable. It's true that nothing external to our minds is valuable in the absence of a valuer, but we value some internal mental states intrinsically even when they don't any instrumental importance.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:09:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.

Changed my mind on this. Happiness (among other goods) is intrinsically valuable. It's true that nothing external to our minds is valuable in the absence of a valuer, but we value some internal mental states intrinsically even when they don't any instrumental importance.

Well, okay, but that's not the same as something being intrinsically valuable, and most people don't make that distinction. It's the difference between "this painting is beautiful" and "we all find this painting pleasing to look at". I mean, the obvious thing is just to say "stop projecting, and stop f*cking talking about it like it's objective." No wonder people get so confused all the time.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:24:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:09:37 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Well, okay, but that's not the same as something being intrinsically valuable, and most people don't make that distinction. It's the difference between "this painting is beautiful" and "we all find this painting pleasing to look at". I mean, the obvious thing is just to say "stop projecting, and stop f*cking talking about it like it's objective." No wonder people get so confused all the time.

Yeah, it's a sad comment on philosophy that the source of some of its most widely discussed branches spring from confusions over terminology.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.

Changed my mind on this. Happiness (among other goods) is intrinsically valuable. It's true that nothing external to our minds is valuable in the absence of a valuer, but we value some internal mental states intrinsically even when they don't any instrumental importance.

So happiness would be good even if we didn't like it?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:22:11 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.

Changed my mind on this. Happiness (among other goods) is intrinsically valuable. It's true that nothing external to our minds is valuable in the absence of a valuer, but we value some internal mental states intrinsically even when they don't any instrumental importance.

So happiness would be good even if we didn't like it?

I think the argument is probably that, if we pursue happiness, we're only pursuing it for its own sake, rather than because it's instrumentally valuable.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:52:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure a value requires a valuer. But everyone who asks the question of the value is a valuer.

Life is not a thing which is subject to having a meaning (per the logical positivists like A.J. Ayer). That's different from being meaningless. Asking the meaning is a nonsense question. For example, asking "Are rocks happy to be on the beach?' is nonsense because rocks are not things capable of being happy or unhappy. The question has the form of a question, but is not a valid question.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:52:43 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Sure a value requires a valuer. But everyone who asks the question of the value is a valuer.

Life is not a thing which is subject to having a meaning (per the logical positivists like A.J. Ayer). That's different from being meaningless. Asking the meaning is a nonsense question. For example, asking "Are rocks happy to be on the beach?' is nonsense because rocks are not things capable of being happy or unhappy. The question has the form of a question, but is not a valid question.
[emphasis added]

Why isn't the answer, "No, the rocks are not happy. They are not things capable of being either happy or unhappy."
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer.

To say something is inherently valuable is to say that it is good even if though it isn't good for anything. That would be like saying something is good even though it has no goodness. Just nonsense.

That's not what inherent value means. Something is inherently valuable if it is intrinsically valuable. That is, valuable as an ends unto itself.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:31:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:47:55 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:52:43 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Sure a value requires a valuer. But everyone who asks the question of the value is a valuer.

Life is not a thing which is subject to having a meaning (per the logical positivists like A.J. Ayer). That's different from being meaningless. Asking the meaning is a nonsense question. For example, asking "Are rocks happy to be on the beach?' is nonsense because rocks are not things capable of being happy or unhappy. The question has the form of a question, but is not a valid question.
[emphasis added]

Why isn't the answer, "No, the rocks are not happy. They are not things capable of being either happy or unhappy."

Because the answer grid isn't binary. Non-happy could mean "incapable of experiencing happiness", but it could just as easily--and more likely--mean "unhappy".
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:38:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:47:55 PM, wiploc wrote:

Why isn't the answer, "No, the rocks are not happy. They are not things capable of being either happy or unhappy."

Because it is useful to distinguish a nonsense question from a real question. It doesn't matter in cases when the nonsense is obvious, like my example. It matters in philosophical discussions when it isn't obvious. "Life has no meaning." implies the question was valid and the answer was "no."
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:36:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:24:51 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
That's not what inherent value means. Something is inherently valuable if it is intrinsically valuable. That is, valuable as an ends unto itself.

I don't get it. I'm inherently valuable because without me I wouldn't be here?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:46:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rocks aren't happy. This seems obvious to me.

Not trying to draw out an argument over a triviality. Just suggesting that a different illustration be used in the future, one more intuitively obvious.

When I want to distinguish true statements ("Canada is north of Kansas") from viewpoint statements ("This tastes good"), I often want to use the fact that the Earth doesn't truly revolve around the sun. But that's a bad choice of illustration because it tends to confuse the many people who think the Earth really does revolve around the sun.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:09:37 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer

The Fool: False, The Good in itself is the good in itself. No it doesnt require a valuer. Its universal.

The Fool: intrinsic and extrinsic are fallacies. I mean even when someone values money the actual value is felt internally by the good they get out of what they buy. People are valuable, we may love someone which is outside us. Life has universal value!!

Cody_Franklin: It's the difference between "this painting is beautiful" and "we all find this painting pleasing to look at". I mean, the obvious thing is just to say "stop projecting, and stop f*cking talking about it like it's objective."

The Fool: But the painting is not The Value. Its a Relative Trigger for the Good in itself. You could through objective and subjective in the garbage. More problems then Good. No need! <(8J)
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:09:37 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/17/2012 2:25:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/17/2012 12:15:10 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/16/2012 8:30:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer

The Fool: False, The Good in itself is the good in itself. No it doesnt require a valuer. Its universal.

Except there isn't such a thing. Repeating a tautology doesn't demonstrate that value exists as a property of objects.

The Fool: intrinsic and extrinsic are fallacies.

Not an argument.

I mean even when someone values money the actual value is felt internally by the good they get out of what they buy.

Correct--that's subjective value.

People are valuable, we may love someone which is outside us.

Okay, that's still subjective, because the value only exists in the mind of the valuer.

Life has universal value!!

That isn't an argument. Even if everyone loved everyone else, it would still be subjective--just collectively subjective.

Cody_Franklin: It's the difference between "this painting is beautiful" and "we all find this painting pleasing to look at". I mean, the obvious thing is just to say "stop projecting, and stop f*cking talking about it like it's objective."

The Fool: But the painting is not The Value. Its a Relative Trigger for the Good in itself.

I already said that--there's some quality about the painting that results in emotional triggers, but that thing isn't objectively good--it's based on subjective preferences that hold no mind-independent wait.

You could through objective and subjective in the garbage. More problems then Good. No need! <(8J)

Uh, no, you can't throw those things away, because there's a clear distinction between subjectivity and objectivity.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer

The Fool: Intrinsic and Extrinsic are fallacies.
P1 we may consider money extrinsic.
P2 but the actual value in itself is always intrinsic
C1 Therefore there is only the [actual value]=v

The Good in itself [v,f,g,n.................................................]

Absolute Universe:
Life:
The Fool [e,l,p.v....................]
Cody_Franklin [e,l,k,v....................]

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)
<(8J)
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:59:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:38:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer


The Fool: Intrinsic and Extrinsic are fallacies.
P1 we may consider money extrinsic.
P2 but the actual value in itself is always intrinsic
C1 Therefore there is only the [actual value]=v

That isn't how syllogisms work. That's just you repeating the thesis that there is intrinsic value, which isn't an argument.

The Good in itself [v,f,g,n.................................................]

Absolute Universe:
Life:
The Fool [e,l,p.v....................]
Cody_Franklin [e,l,k,v....................]

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)
<(8J)

I have no f*cking idea what this means. It's a string of meaningless letters.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:19:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:59:25 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:38:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer


The Fool: Intrinsic and Extrinsic are fallacies.
P1 we may consider money extrinsic.
P2 but the actual value in itself is always intrinsic
C1 Therefore there is only the [actual value]=v

That isn't how syllogisms work. That's just you repeating the thesis that there is intrinsic value, which isn't an argument.

The Fool: Intrinsic only makes sense if there exist an extrinsic. Come on now! this is BullDh!t VIOLATION Poc.


The Good in itself [v,f,g,n.................................................]

Absolute Universe:
Life:
The Fool [e,l,p.v....................]
Cody_Franklin [e,l,k,v....................]

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)
<(8J)

I have no f*cking idea what this means. It's a string of meaningless letters.

The Fool: Okay mabye I way over estimated you. LMFAO. They are strings of Formula sets. In that the dots represnet more of unknown portions formula. Whats a matter with you? Its like you purposly trying to avoid moral Knowledge. .
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 1:00:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 12:19:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:59:25 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:38:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer


The Fool: Intrinsic and Extrinsic are fallacies.
P1 we may consider money extrinsic.
P2 but the actual value in itself is always intrinsic
C1 Therefore there is only the [actual value]=v

That isn't how syllogisms work. That's just you repeating the thesis that there is intrinsic value, which isn't an argument.

The Fool: Intrinsic only makes sense if there exist an extrinsic. Come on now! this is BullDh!t VIOLATION Poc.

Not if the only kind of value is subjective.


The Good in itself [v,f,g,n.................................................]

Absolute Universe:
Life:
The Fool [e,l,p.v....................]
Cody_Franklin [e,l,k,v....................]

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)
<(8J)

I have no f*cking idea what this means. It's a string of meaningless letters.

The Fool: Okay mabye I way over estimated you. LMFAO.

Personal jabs are unwelcome.

They are strings of Formula sets.

I don't know what that means. Explain it to me, in clear English, as if I was 12.

In that the dots represnet more of unknown portions formula.

I don't know what that means, nor do I know what the letters, other than v, stand for. Explain both to me, in clear English, as if I was 12.

Whats a matter with you? Its like you purposly trying to avoid moral Knowledge.

Whats the matter with you? It's like you're purposely trying to be obfuscatory.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 1:00:52 PM, wrote:
At 8/20/2012 12:19:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:59:25 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:38:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:59:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:20:03 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Almost everyone is agreed that life has no inherent value/meaning.

Nothing is inherently valuable. Value requires a valuer


The Fool: Intrinsic and Extrinsic are fallacies.
P1 we may consider money extrinsic.
P2 but the actual value in itself is always intrinsic
C1 Therefore there is only the [actual value]=v

That isn't how syllogisms work. That's just you repeating the thesis that there is intrinsic value, which isn't an argument.

The Fool: Intrinsic only makes sense if there exist an extrinsic. Come on now! this is BullDh!t VIOLATION Poc.

Not if the only kind of value is subjective.

The Fool: If it is only then it is JUST VALUE, IN THE UNIVERSE.


The Good in itself [v,f,g,n.................................................]

Absolute Universe:
Life:
The Fool [e,l,p.v....................]
Cody_Franklin [e,l,k,v....................]

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)
<(8J)



The Fool: Okay mabye I way over estimated you. LMFAO.



They are strings of Formula sets.

I don't know what that means.
In that the dots represnet more of unknown portions formula.

I don't know what that means, nor do I know what the letters, other than v, stand for.

Whats a matter with you? Its like you purposly trying to avoid moral Knowledge.

The Fool: I use the box here like this [h,v,s,e] To refer to a formula. In which letters represent elements and relationships between them. AKa an object/subject has a formula. I used our names for rigdit designators refering to our formulas. Aka that which constitutes us individually as a living being. I use this [....] to represent other aspects, including those which are noit know yet known. Hence:

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)

Where V was THE VALUE itself. In us. With that being part of the Form of The Good.
Moral philosophy being the Quest to figure out the entire formula of The Good in itself. Thus even though its incomplete we can use what we know as the best to our moral understanding yet. Reaching its completion is to figure out the best course of actions,organization. etc, Thus making it a Moral science.

Cody_Franklin: Personal jabs are unwelcome.: Whats the matter with you?
Explain it to me, in clear English, as if I was 12.
It's like you're purposely trying to be obfuscatory.
Explain both to me, in clear English, as if I was 12.
I have no f*cking idea what this means.
It's a string of meaningless letters.

For the Fool is the defender of The Good. And the enemy or the IMMORRALIST. <(8J)
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:41:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 2:15:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 1:00:52 PM, wrote:
At 8/20/2012 12:19:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Intrinsic only makes sense if there exist an extrinsic. Come on now! this is BullDh!t VIOLATION Poc.

Not if the only kind of value is subjective.

The Fool: If it is only then it is JUST VALUE, IN THE UNIVERSE.

Except it isn't in the universe. Objects, actions, people--value isn't a property assignable to them. It's just a way of describing subjective evaluations.

Whats a matter with you? Its like you purposly trying to avoid moral Knowledge.

The Fool: I use the box here like this [h,v,s,e] To refer to a formula. In which letters represent elements and relationships between them.

Which elements, and what relationships, and what "formula"?

AKa an object/subject has a formula.

What formula?

I used our names for rigdit designators refering to our formulas.

Which formulas? I have no idea what you mean when you say that.

Aka that which constitutes us individually as a living being. I use this [....] to represent other aspects, including those which are noit know yet known. Hence:

The Good [vp,s,c,p.............................................] (formula)

Where V was THE VALUE itself. In us. With that being part of the Form of The Good.

So, "the formula" of the good, which sounds like a fancy way of saying "the good consists in...", includes value. That doesn't demonstrate that value is objective, or that there is some "Good" which has objective or proper "Form"--you're just making assertions over and over. That's just you repeating your thesis again, which isn't an argument.

Moral philosophy being the Quest to figure out the entire formula of The Good in itself. Thus even though its incomplete we can use what we know as the best to our moral understanding yet. Reaching its completion is to figure out the best course of actions,organization. etc, Thus making it a Moral science.

Except, my argument is that experience is fundamentally inauthentic--not insofar as we can never discover "the Good" or whatever, but insofar as there isn't an authentic experience, or a "best" form of life.

For the Fool is the defender of The Good. And the enemy or the IMMORRALIST.

I'm not an immoralist. Immoralism requires believing that a system of ethics is true, but deliberately opting to act contrary to it. I don't think normative ethics holds weight, period, so I'm not an immoralist.