OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Yes true, that is the way we understand it, but if I then told you that 2 + 2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?
I would ask you to make your definitions (of "2" and "+" and "=" and "5") EXPLICIT.
In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "there is only one god", I will ask them to make their definition of "god" explicit.
In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "freewill is for-realzies", I will ask them to make their definitions of "freewill" and "real" explicit.
In the exact same way, if someone makes a vague claim (bald assertion, appeal to ignorance) like, "morality is objective", I will ask them to make their definitions of "morality" and "objective" explicit.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles. copyleft wiki
Use the tag #LOGICZOMBIE if you'd like to participate in a civil debate or have your post critiqued for logical coherence.
Essential sites for (new) steemit users:
check anybody's steemit activity log
check anybody's steemit activity patterns
offical steemit etiquette guide
check anybody's re-steems
advice for minnows and plankton
steemit explained (TBHTS)
are you tired of $0.00 rewards? (balance denominated in SBD)
are you tired of $0.00 rewards? also check
Also, set your rewards to 100% steem power and you'll get a cool steem logo next to all your posts!!
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
What do you believe? You tell people to define what they believe. Does that mean you believe in nothing? If that is true, then please define nothing.
My AXIOMS are,
+proLOGIC +proHUMAN +proFAMILY
me too
That's probably why we've found each other.
Now it's just a matter of building out a coherent framework based on these AXIOMS.
The root of those axioms is grace and justice which roots from love which is life and everything.
I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.
Your personal definitions of "grace" and "justice" and "love" should be derived from +proLOGIC +proHUMAN +proFAMILY.
If you can, please quantify (explicitly and rigorously define) what you call "love".
but logic according to who?
Let's stop and think about that for a minute.
How many "different versions" of logic are there (that you know of or can find)?
Which one do you personally think is "the best"?
So long as googling the definitions is allowed, I think maybe if a personal definition is too far from the accepted then it is almost a pointless discussion since that person has removed all constraints and can say anything they want. I guess many will then argue that I am imposing socially accepted on them but I think for any such discussion to be worth it a semblance of structure or foundation should be in place, how else can you know more and learn if you do not accept that some of what we know is at the very least with our current mental faculties infallible. !tip 2
I'm going to guess you're an INTJ?
You highlight a very important point.
I try to set all of my ideas aside (except logic) and try to learn my debate partner's personal lexicon.
Once I feel like I have a basic understanding I will present a steel-man of their argument and ask, "is this what you mean?".
This is staking out common-ground. No real intellectual progress can be made until common-ground is agreed to.
MOST arguments (fights) are clear misunderstandings and miscommunications.
You might accuse me of being a COMMUNIST!!!
ANd when I ask you if you are accusing me of advocating STALINIST methodology (which I do not by the way), you refuse to make your personal definition of "communist" explicit and furthermore you take offense at me even asking the question, because, as you see it, "everybody knows what 'communist' means and you're just being dis-ingenuous if you pretend otherwise" (which is a classic rush-to-disqualify).
But more to your specific point, "...then it is almost a pointless discussion since that person has removed all constraints and can say anything they want."
This is actually not the case.
In the same way that you can analyze a fantasy-science-fiction book or movie for LOGICAL COHERENCE, you can temporarily adopt someone else's AXIOMS and try to point out where they CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
"Your belief system is riddled with fatal contradictions".
That is one of my sayings... Ok not exactly but the way I say it is: "I am a walking contradiction", cognitive dissonance with no commitment... Partially at least? What I think and what I say do not have to lineup, they mostly need to be relevant to the topic at hand. I think it is a bit heavy calling it a belief system, more a feel it out in the dark system and maintain a certain degree of consistency as I go through life gaining new info and down the line maybe I change my mind. I think a belief system surely is very set, if that is the case then my main belief is to be sufficiently dismissive of things as not concerning me. Then I maybe chill later and I think on it a bit and decide I like this or I like that since it makes sense and I decide to give it more relevance. When it comes to opinions and maybe a discussion the other party will always be more invested in it than what I am... Then again what am I even explaining because "Fatal" would then mean that no matter if I explain how I process or think about things I am wrong due to it being contradictory to something else... I also don't know in which way it is contradictory apart from personally I know that I say,think and do things not in line with what I may have said,thought or done. :) cool comment though it sounds badass.
I agree. HOwever, what you say and what you say should be logically coherent.
To what degree? For example, when I write I find it very train of thought, so I know I am not always the most succinct and may even end up arguing my bloody self. That is where I like to think the cognitive dissonance comes in since I have a preferred line of thinking vs something I might be muddling around. Freaking word diarrhoea I that.
I will read the rest of your comments though then respond.
Your statements don't need to match your entire history of statements.
If you applied historical coherence to science, we'd be stuck in the stone age.
You only need to make your most recent claims coherent.
For example, your latest book or movie may contradict your previous book or movie in some way, but each book or movie must be consistent with itself.
As it should be.
Nice I got something right :) Just finished poker going to go google Axioms now. BRB.
A certain amount of explicit flexibility is the hallmark of a durable belief system.
And, thanks for the complement.
Can you identify your primary AXIOMS?
Ok I lied I also went to go buy cancer while thinking on this Axiom thing. From what I see it is a self-evident belief, so a foundational one. A position I would take, mmmm tricky. Yours for example is very broad, proHuman... I am on the other side of that if it means that human life matters above all. Family is also something that depends on context, but I can see that might probably include any support structure which you can use to stick to your "belief".
I think if anyone has spoken to me for a bit and read some of my trash that I consider people to be evil, the masses to be immoral and think life can be forfeited. I think cultures and religion are traditionally toxic and that violence should meet a literal death. People are not equal although we must endeavour to treat them as such, this is more inclined to be in line with things like IQ for want of a better example... Trying to keep things coherent but think that is about it, the broad strokes I would say, mainly guilty until proven innocent if I were to use a single phrase as an axiom.
Edit: I would have to think on it more since I tend to just go kamikaze and make connections as I go :)
Please explain.
Well, at the core it is more a judgement that I hold of anyone I meet. It is also more nurture than nature. Being able to consciously inflict harm and then do so because you can is evil, so everyone is evil. That is not a biggy though since it is just part of life. I have a problem with the masses because they seem to reject individual morality assuming they are part of the greater good. This makes anything they wish "the greater good" Life can be forfeited because life can be said to have rules, as we progress in thinking we can refine these - that is our social contract.
I agree that doing immoral things in the service of "the greater good" or because someone "trusts their god/boss/general" is a primary factor in the spread of "evil" and the shirking of "personal responsibility".
That's why I'm a big fan of deontological ethics. And also why I'm very skeptical of consequentialism.
It means (each individual) human life matters above all (to each individual).
Agreed on the to each individual. Self-preservation.
Survival instinct is primary. That's why "nihilism" is incoherent.
Human life is impossible without a family, so it's actually just an extension of +proHUMAN.
Human life is impossible without a womb. The family then nurtures it, fair enough. Family, however, does not have to mean Mom, Dad etc. It just means support structure.
I agree.
Are you suggesting we should kill people to keep people from killing people?
Haha, I know that is probably an age-old discussion, personally I do not see a way around it. I think about it as if I never wanted to be sad then I could remove it but I would need to remove the happy also and feel nothing. Now to have a healthy society with people doing good, and we have established that individual and organizational (for lack of a better word) violence is bad for society but it is also the ultimate in bad. Because of the status that violence holds it is not as simple as just saying go to jail. So yes kill people from killing people, and obviously, by extention this means I think there must always be a governmental entity which inforces. So we have to still keep the bad to have the good.
There are humane prisons.
I found this interesting,
Do you believe a high IQ always = good (more valuable) person?
No. I think that if people were honest with themselves they would be well aware of their shortcomings, then I think things that are assumed prejudice are merely filters to find the right people for the right things. More than that I mean that people should think in those terms, they need to hold prejudice to make better decisions. If society as a whole were to think in those terms would we even have a political structure the way we do? Would we not then prefer facts as we know that we are prejudice, we as individuals would also not try to just get things we feel we are owed because of being aware of our own shortcomings thus I think people that then rise above would always be on merit. IQ alone means nothing, as a lot has to do with your personal moral and ethical views etc. I don't think a person can filter on a single criteria. I just think someone with a decent IQ stands a better chance of avoiding being swallowed by the masses.
Self-bias is extremely difficult to spot,
Sometimes they are useful and sometimes they are counter-productive.
It's important to try and be aware of your own prejudices as much as possible.
Eh, this is tricky. You'd have to rigorously define "merit" in order to make it scientifically quantifiable.
I agree, but they also have a better chance of subverting an otherwise fair system.
Can you scientifically quantify a person's "moral and ethical views etc."?
Are you advocating a general skepticism concerning claims?
I'd say that all claims are incoherent until proven to be coherent.
A presumption of incoherence should be maintained when evaluating claims.
I like how you are using incoherence to also mean unproven, it is basically how I process and even once I think I have something coherent I deliver it incoherent but maybe that is the nature of these things as I find them abstract.
Natural language is often ill-suited to serve epistemological concepts.
🎁 Hi @logiczombie! You have received 2.0 STEEM tip from @penderis!
@penderis wrote lately about: How Steem Has Impacted My Life - Draft Feel free to follow @penderis if you like it :)
Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.
Thanks, @socky!!