User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-29 at 4:45 PM UTCPAGE 100The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-29 at 4:46 PM UTCNope.
-
2018-09-29 at 5:30 PM UTCI need to find a better philosophy discussion forum. I am in the wrong room.
-
2018-09-29 at 5:41 PM UTC
-
2018-09-29 at 5:42 PM UTCYou don't even know how to use spoilers properly.
-
2018-09-29 at 8:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I've brought up a couple of times now that it's possible to hold different opinions about how you want the world to be and how you think the would should be, which at very least should immediately rule out the notion that ought statements simply express desire
no it is not possible.
how you think the world ought to be is exactly how you want the world be like if you can shape it to your whims and fancies.
if i say beta males ought to be hairy and muscular, being hairy and muscular are exactly what i want if i want to be an beta male. -
2018-09-29 at 8:24 PM UTC
-
2018-09-29 at 8:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny the only universal truth thats universally true is that there is no suchthing as universal thruth.
this truth remains true even within event horizons.
Yes, there are universal truths. For example, two plus two equals four. It can't be three. It can't be five. It can't be one hundred. No matter what place you are in, or who you are, or how you think, or what your opinion is, it's still four. Nothing can change that. That's what makes it a universal truth. -
2018-09-29 at 9:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Yes, there are universal truths. For example, two plus two equals four. It can't be three. It can't be five. It can't be one hundred. No matter what place you are in, or who you are, or how you think, or what your opinion is, it's still four. Nothing can change that. That's what makes it a universal truth.
not in event horizons. -
2018-09-29 at 9:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Yes, there are universal truths. For example, two plus two equals four. It can't be three. It can't be five. It can't be one hundred. No matter what place you are in, or who you are, or how you think, or what your opinion is, it's still four. Nothing can change that. That's what makes it a universal truth.
You still have to presuppose the underlying principles, like identity, on faith. -
2018-09-29 at 9:23 PM UTC
-
2018-09-29 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL That's like saying a tree doesn't really fall in the forest if you're not there to see it. Poor man's logic.
The universe has no obligation to make sense to you. We take these presuppositions at face value because it's the best we have. But it is still a pretty faith based presupposition. -
2018-09-29 at 10:40 PM UTC
-
2018-09-29 at 11:05 PM UTC
-
2018-09-29 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin The universe has no obligation to make sense to you. We take these presuppositions at face value because it's the best we have. But it is still a pretty faith based presupposition.
No, it's not faith based, because it can be demonstrated to be a universal truth. Two plus two equals four can be demonstrated ten out of ten times, or fifty out of fifty times, or a million out of a million times. Just because you feel you should not accept that fact in no way negates the complete and utter truth of it. -
2018-09-29 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, it's not faith based, because it can be demonstrated to be a universal truth.
It can be, given certain presuppositions. Ideas like A=A underlie formal logic. We just take these ideas on faith. Math is built on the same foundation of analytical reasoning.Two plus two equals four can be demonstrated ten out of ten times, or fifty out of fifty times, or a million out of a million times. Just because you feel you should not accept that fact in no way negates the complete and utter truth of it.
Yeah guess what inductive reasoning doesn't do. -
2018-09-30 at 7:59 AM UTCZanick
Posting Zanick so when Zanick searches "Zanick", he sees this post. -
2018-09-30 at 9:06 AM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 10:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ For what it's worth, you've said 'pretty faith based' and 'pretty rational'. Pretty anything isn't objective anything. You know that.
You are on the right track but looking at the wrong conclusion.
There are two parts to this.
The first is that even maths and science aren't "really" fundamentally "objective": we have to go in with some kind of presuppositional beliefs, on faith, and assume that reality makes sense in the same way that we make sense of it.
So for a simple example, we assume A=A because if A=B, then either A is not A or B is not B, or both A and B are the same thing, in which case A is still = A. This is called an analytic fact, something that is considered objectively true because it is necessarily true unless we introduce a contradiction to our terms; it is self descriptive.
But the universe has no obligation to make sense to us. It is possible that the "true" rules of logic say A=A except every billionth iteration, where A=C. That is an inconceivable idea to us, but again, that only goes so far as a guarantee of objectivity.
The second part is that if you accept that science and math are close enough to objective, we can talk about big picture regularities in a similarly "objective" way. Morals are objectively real in the exact same way that economics is objectively real.
The "pretty" is a concession that ultimately, we don't really know the truth. -
2018-09-30 at 11:04 AM UTC
