I would argue that Gödel's theorems place a much stronger constraint on our ability to ascertain "objective" truth than our mere nature
Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?
Quote from: le peanut butter man xd on September 08, 2015, 09:16:14 PMI would argue that Gödel's theorems place a much stronger constraint on ability to ascertain "objective" truth than our mere natureGodel's theorems have to do with analytic propositions, no? The relation of ideas? I was discussing synthetic propositions only.
I would argue that Gödel's theorems place a much stronger constraint on ability to ascertain "objective" truth than our mere nature
Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:14:49 PMYes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?
Since Verb posted his 'definition', I'll post mine:Where o is the outcome of action A, and u(o) is the terminal utility of o and p(o) the probability of o.
Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:19:11 PMQuote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:14:49 PMYes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?I'm asking you why my preference matters.
Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:20:45 PMQuote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:19:11 PMQuote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:14:49 PMYes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?I'm asking you why my preference matters.Your preference of what? Clarity is paramount in this kind of discussion.Why does it matter that you would prefer not to feel pain? Because we're the only things on the planet that can cognizantly prevent it.
"Good" and "Bad" are nonexistent concepts on their own.
Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.
Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:28:22 PM"Good" and "Bad" are nonexistent concepts on their own.If you had read my previous post, you'd have noticed that I'd said the same thing...Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 08:47:06 PMWithout sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality....thus, you're arguing with a strawman.The existence of sentient life produces morality, and it is objective--that is my argument.
doesn't such a break from the rule immediately invalidate its objectivity?
Can it not be "Good" in somebody else' eyes?
Like a masochist?
First, somebody define what "Bad" means, because I clearly don't know.
No morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective.
Quote from: Lord Starch on September 08, 2015, 09:58:12 PMNo morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective."Near Death Experiences are derived wholly from human experience, and are subject to different characteristics in different cultures, thus making it impossible for us to talk about NDEs objectively."You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.
but this thread reeks of escotericism.
Morality is derived from human emotion
Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 10:03:40 PM but this thread reeks of escotericism. We're discussing philosophy. It's always going to be esoteric.
You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.
Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 10:01:45 PMYou're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.don't act like he knows what those words mean
Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 10:07:09 PMQuote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 10:01:45 PMYou're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.don't act like he knows what those words meanYeeeaaaah condescension!
Why do you people make life so complicated
Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 10:08:13 PMQuote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 10:07:09 PMQuote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 10:01:45 PMYou're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.don't act like he knows what those words meanYeeeaaaah condescension!i don't know--is it bad to want to streamline esoteric subjects to the uninitiated?
Quote from: Batchinator Epsilon on September 08, 2015, 10:13:17 PMWhy do you people make life so complicatedI think if there's one thing people should work out it's probably morality.
If your goal is to promote more critical, philosophical thinking in people who aren't as versed in the subject as you, then no, it isn't bad. Honestly, I've found by excluding the people who are willing to partake in these sorts of discussions just because some of the vocabulary is unfamiliar, you just create a bigger division between the group of people that understand it with ease, and those that require a different approach.
Is morality objective?
