Refute me babies!

[Kuciwalker]

I'm going to use this thread to shamelessly put forward my own philosphy (well, a part of it) :

There is an absolute, objective moral code. However, there is no objective way to observe this code, so everyone's viewpoint on morality is subject. The key here is that not all viewpoints on morality are equally valid, because one of them MUST be right. You just don't know which. Thus, you are justified in asserting your moral code on others. However, people are equally justified in resisting that, not necessarily because of their "rights" but simply because your acts are "immoral" to them, just not the act of imposing it on them.

I hope that made sense.

[St Leo]

Refute me babies!

If I don't, am I still a baby?

[Ben Kenobi]

It means that he got his rear kicked by an infant.

However, there is no objective way to observe this code, so everyone's viewpoint on morality is subject. The key here is that not all viewpoints on morality are equally valid, because one of them MUST be right. You just don't know which. Thus, you are justified in asserting your moral code on others. However, people are equally justified in resisting that, not necessarily because of their "rights" but simply because your acts are "immoral" to them, just not the act of imposing it on them.

If someone told you all trees were really flourescent purple, would you believe him? Why not?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I fail to see how your attempt at "logic" is useful. you havent told me how to judge the height of a mountain, or how to judge at a boxing match.

That is the main problem. If you accept it as true, then since there are always 'wildcards', there is no application, no use for it. This all only holds if there are no wildcards.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
if reality bores you, then please stay away from ethics and politics - they are very much the realms of real life.

As a concept relativism works. When you apply it to the real world it doesn't.

Originally posted by Sprayber
Go out and get laid. You'll feel better.

I wouldn't advise him to do that. More incidents are not necessary

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I think your logic is correct. Do I have this correct:
Take two objects. A big red ball, and a small green box. You are saying to a subjective observer, there are (at least) three differences because of our preconceptions of size colour and shape. If we place each object on a 3D set of axes labelled by those three criteria, they can be judged to be different on all three. Then you remove the axes, to judge on a 0-dimensional criteria, and find that both objects, (and indeed every possible object in that 3D space) are the same.

I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is largely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.

I agree Although i would say:

I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is completely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.

Originally posted by Oerdin
When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.

And that's the problem. It all holds in theory, but in the real world, there is no use for it. There are always wildcards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, and I got mocked for saying 1+1 does not always have to equal 2... and now people are saying the same thing and offering more proofs. Where were you people like a year back!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sure. Quite simply, assuming my logic to be correct, it means it is illogical to impose one subjective view upon another.

But the belief to impose is equally valid as the belief not to. Going to war is as valid as not. If everything is equally valid, then nothing is better than anything else, and so it doesn't matter what you do at all, what action sare taken, what beliefs you have, since the outcome will be just as good/bad as if you haven't.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not necessarily. Consider a war between two nations, who would impose each others view on one another. An objective (like the UN ideally at least ), can be used to arbitrate. Also consider a court. We have objective judges, who use wildcards to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, but as they walk into the court, this situation remains. Consider the analogy I used of the boxer. All is equally valid until judged within a certain context by a pseudo-objective with wildcards. Outside of that context, equal validity remains.

But who is the say the UN is more objective than any nation? Why would a psuedo objective be any more valid, since overall it too is subjective.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It just so happens that certain metaphysical logic is applicable, as much of it is, to this phenomenological reality.

Or not, as the case may be.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
A context of equal validity is one in which there is no judgement. As soon as you assign a criterium upon which to judge, all objectivity is lost. Thus your logic, though consistent, is utterly meaningless in reality.

Exactly

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not at all. The UN would judge objectively for itself, and anyone going along with the UN would be satisfied with that judgement. Here, its essentially a question of justice vs vigilantism/unilateralism.

Or ofone subjective (the UN) against another (an individual nation). In the big picture, as you are so often say you believe in, they are both subjective, and therefore, equally valid. If, in any given context, you say that someone is a pseudo objective, then you make their opinion more valid. Everyone has wildcards. There is no neutral. Therefore there is only subjective (unless you believe in God).

Originally posted by Whaleboy
but not for the position who has been assigned that wildcard. It is that position that must judge for itself

That I disagree with. Even a judge has wildcards, thus he is equally valid as anyone else.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This is a metaphysical argument, who only has applications at this level. Lets keep it within that context for now.

Then why put the

Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

In the first post. You are saying it applies to politics, which is based in the real world. Therefore an argument presuming we live in this world is valid to refute that point.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid" ?

I agree. It's just useless.

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I agree. It's just useless.

Thats good enough for me. This is metaphysics at this stage, one gets ones hands dirty with this concept later.

In that case, it does not apply to politics, purely to metaphysics. It is, as many have said, useless in the real world.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I dont believe morality to exist beyond the bounds of each subjective interpretation of each individual.

I agree with that. But then I don't think morality exists, on an overall scale.

Originally posted by GePap

This is a metaphysical argument, who only has applications at this level. Lets keep it within that context for now.

Oh, a useless level....

But on that level, you are generally correct.

Exactly

[GePap]

The only "objective" morality I can see existing is codes based on the socio-biological realities of the animal homo sapiens: there are behaviors that in the long and short term are damaging to the cohesion of human social structures and human bodies and if one decides that the stable continuation of both or either are of fundamental importance to human beings (and how could they not?), then you make rules againts these damaging behaviors, which is why every society has some concept of murder or theft: but more abstract moral codes and certainly any estblished religions are without any form of objective basis.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True, because it is not an ultimate objective, but consider its position. I am merely using such illustration to make it easier to perceive the logical structure and positions I am using here.

All opinions are equally subjective therefore all opinions are equally logically valid is not a logical position. I fail to see how equal subjectivity somehow magically translates into equal logical validity.

Moving up your totem pole, why the obsession with logic at all? It's ethically inert.

[Ned]

Whaleboy likens reality to a game without rules. This reminds me of the race in Alice in Wonderland or was it Through the Looking Glass where the contestants ran around the track as fast as they could. Only, there was now way to determine a winner!

In Whaleboy's school, there are no wrong answers. Everybody must pass because there is no way of determining whether anybody has learned anything.

[Peter Triggs]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Modular mathematics is a self-consistent mathematics which is most accessably described as clock mathematics. A 12-hour clock is basicaly mod 12. 10am + 4 = 2pm In mod 2, 1+1 would equal 0.

You only satisfy four out of the five Peano axioms: "0 is not a successor" is false. In fact, this is the standard example to show that this axiom is independent of the others.

[Urban Ranger]

AFAICT, what you are saying, Whaleboy, is you cannot distinguish between two things without knowing at least one discriminating criterion.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

[BeBMan]

reminds me on the thread where DF said not having sex is the best method for stopping AIDS in Africa

[Whaleboy]

I would argue that this is false, that there is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which 1 + 1 != 2

Clock thingy. Change the rules, the premise, it is still consistent.

Wrong. Each person has "goals". If imposing your subjective viewpoint forwards that goal, then it is logical for you to do it.

For you, yes, but with that context of >1 subjective, and from the view of the pseudo objective, it is not. Consider the following example. You have £2000 and I'm poor as ****. It is logical for me to steal it, yet the law, a judge, or an independent observer will most likely (assuming one of their wildcards is against stealing, or a relativist doctrine of position) not concur with me. In that sense, small logic vs big logic. One reason I don't steal is that I, like all, can to some degree emulate that objectivity.

I would also say this is false, or more so that it is irrelevent. I'm going to use a computer science analogy here. There is this freaky concept-space out in never never land in which all concepts exist. Individual words are "pointers" to the location in concept-space of its meaning. Thus, it is fruitless to argue that the meaning of a word is subjective, because it isn't the word that is important, but rather the "word literal", the sequence of concepts that the person is trying to communicate.

Ummm, thats not what I'm arguing at all. Someone said that since words for something like height differ, that the meaning of the word is affected. Semantics show that is not the case.

What if commies and capitalists agree with him on the other side?

Wooo! World peace!

Why? What's wrong with Kant?

I am unsatisfied with deontological systems, since I believe that moral absolutes do not exist. He assumed that if I am rational and decide that on that basis, action X is wrong, then it is ultimately wrong. We have established holes in the notion of quantitative logic, the problems of qualitative logic is even worse! You can even use my position is a further refutation, call it contextual logic, thus contextual morality.

So why then do you like Liberalism and Pacifism? Do you like them because they taste sweet and feel soft?

Liberalism (in the libertarian sense), because it is a form of moral relativism, and it is easy to see how that links in to this. Pacifism for the same reason.

There is an absolute, objective moral code

God? There may be no objective way to observe it, but you need to show that this code exists.

Thus, you are justified in asserting your moral code on others. However, people are equally justified in resisting that, not necessarily because of their "rights" but simply because your acts are "immoral" to them, just not the act of imposing it on them.

A subjectivist position, and logical if I may say so, assuming your premise (inquired above) to be true, which I dispute, but nonetheless a nice piece of reasoning . Our positions differ because I do not believe that code to exist. Thus the belief of absolute, infinite validity that each subjective may hold, is a fallacy, and thus it boils down to my position.

If I don't, am I still a baby?

Nah, you're all my babies

It means that he got his rear kicked by an infant.

Scarily close to reality...

If someone told you all trees were really flourescent purple, would you believe him? Why not?

If he believes what he says? I would believe it to be true for him, but not true for me, and my position to not be necessarily ultimately true.

That is the main problem. If you accept it as true, then since there are always 'wildcards', there is no application, no use for it. This all only holds if there are no wildcards.

All I am asking at this stage is the logic be regarded as true. That is generally agreed to be the case, though I eagerly await Sky's response, with much genuine interest.

As a concept relativism works. When you apply it to the real world it doesn't.

Ok, now methinks is the time to answer that "Oh it won't work" responses. True, it wont. This thread is merely about a logical device. Implementations caused thereof, for example, my kind of pacifism and libertarianism, as well as cognitive relativism, aren't meant to be introduces as a political or social system at once. I am an idealist and by nature, my ideas are unrealistic. It is up to the pragmatists to take elements of my concepts and implement them, and over time (perhaps thousands of years), society becomes more and more like my ideal. This is of course helped by civilisations tendency to become more libertarian. Of course, the bigger the context, the easier it is to apply, for example, war and cognitive absolutism. I have no plans on world domination, so I don't have to pollute my ideals with pragmatism.

I wouldn't advise him to do that. More incidents are not necessary

You're not the one who has had three blood tests in as many months

I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is completely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.

A strange position, given such examples as the legal system, and your well known distaste for vigilantism of both individuals and unilateralist nations. Methinks another case of "lets antagonise Ben for fun"

And that's the problem. It all holds in theory, but in the real world, there is no use for it. There are always wildcards.

Hence we are able to judge. Remove the judge. All is equally valid. Consider the Iraq war. The UN, disregarded by one of the subjective positions, and that imposes itself upon another. The UN of course, with its wildcards, is able to judge and not remain neutral for long but it is that process of judging that gives an option greater validity. Like I have said in the past, political actions based on logic are generally superior to those based on emotions or subjective whims.

But the belief to impose is equally valid as the belief not to.

A case of without relativism, where the position is respected. Within relativism, the action is not permitted.

But who is the say the UN is more objective than any nation? Why would a psuedo objective be any more valid, since overall it too is subjective.

An objective is defined as independent to the subjectives. It could be the UN, it could be another nation, that is satisfactory, but for reasons of global consensus, I would prefer the UN, that is irrelevant. It needs to be independent, in other words, no interests with either subjective. Its wildcards are pre-determined, and where they are not, they should be balanced (another reason a body like the UN makes a better judge).

Or not, as the case may be.

You need to show this.

A context of equal validity is one in which there is no judgement. As soon as you assign a criterium upon which to judge, all objectivity is lost. Thus your logic, though consistent, is utterly meaningless in reality.

Exactly

Remember the issue of context. If we're riding with the pseudo-objective, we have made a pseudo-objective decision. For example, where our opinions are riding on the result of a court judgement.

There is no neutral. Therefore there is only subjective (unless you believe in God).

I concur, but you misunderstand. You are treating this overall. Consider the question of one context, subjective A, vs subjective B, + stranger (PO) C.

That I disagree with. Even a judge has wildcards, thus he is equally valid as anyone else.

Not within a certain context. In a courtroom, the judge is more valid (within that context) than the defendant and plaintiff. The defendant is acquitted and theyre all down the pub (outside of context). They are all equally valid.

Then why put the

Because metaphysical and metaethical logic has implications in "the real world". Consider the question of utility as an example of that!

In the first post. You are saying it applies to politics, which is based in the real world. Therefore an argument presuming we live in this world is valid to refute that point.

No, because the consequences of this idea for the real world are merely implications and, well, consequences of it, not an application of it. The best you can do is argue by analogy, and I know how much you love that Drogue .

In that case, it does not apply to politics, purely to metaphysics. It is, as many have said, useless in the real world.

See above.

I agree with that. But then I don't think morality exists, on an overall scale.

I concur. To each his own, but they are merely mental constructs.

I fail to see how equal subjectivity somehow magically translates into equal logical validity.

The two are pretty much interchangeable.

Moving up your totem pole

Please... not in public

why the obsession with logic at all? It's ethically inert.

Precisely!

In Whaleboy's school, there are no wrong answers. Everybody must pass because there is no way of determining whether anybody has learned anything.

Finally! A chance for me to succeed in life!! On a serious note, that is why my concept cannot be introduced all guns blazing into reality. Though I suppose you could, my mind can't perceive a fractal that intricate, so I'll just say that in general, like all concepts, it can only be applied piece by piece. You people need to show my why it is "completely, utterly useless".

AFAICT, what you are saying, Whaleboy, is you cannot distinguish between two things without knowing at least one discriminating criterion.

Thats exactly it!! I'm trying to make people who like debating with me for dubious reasons (sic Drogue ) look like idiots! jk

[Drogue]

Originally posted by BeBro
reminds me on the thread where DF said not having sex is the best method for stopping AIDS in Africa