Makaze

Can make light of any situation. Good to have around at parties.

My first post in the thread expressed that exact view. The question was rhetorical.

You can't use the cause as an axiom for universal morality when not everyone has the cause. When I pointed out that exceptions exist, you said, 'So what? We need it to survive as a species.' The sociopath might come back and say, 'So what? I don't need the species to survive.' It's a stalemate. Your objection to my argument against moral axioms doesn't make sense unless 'survival is good' is being assumed as an axiom itself.

I am disappointed that Oberstein gets so little screentime. His upbringing sounds incredibly interesting.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you think I was being arrogant there. On one level, I was not attempting to contradict anyone; as far as I could tell I was making a distinct point that had not been addressed. On another level, I agree with Russel about that technicality. I was thinking of bringing it up myself because it seems to be a corollary of what I was saying. However I'm not sure how the relative knowledge of P's existence fits in. Wouldn't it be true or false for me and false or meaningless for you? You raise a solid argument against my position and prove that including a vacuous subject does not invalidate the statement by itself. I was hasty in making such a judgment. So, does the human race need to survive? Needs are relative to goals, but those goals are not universal. That casts reasonable doubt at least.

There will be disorder, but why ask that? You might ask, is that disorder moral or immoral? That's harder to say. From one perspective, it may be seen as moral because it is a result of moral actions. In that case there are no right or wrong sides because they are both right simply for fighting over their convictions. Most concepts of morality don't agree with that, but there isn't an easy way to refute it either. Morals and values are essentially the same thing. The moral rule 'killing is wrong' stems from the conviction that 'living is valued/valuable'. The more we value living, the more wrong killing is. I would say that morality is how we impose our values onto the world.

I already stated in my original post that I agree it is a requirement for the survival of the species. In order to assert that this is common (in the sense that I meant common), I would need for it to be impossible or unimaginable for one not to care about the survival of the species. That is not the case. Morality is necessary relative to certain goals, but are those goals in and of themselves necessary for the individual to continue existing on their own merit? I don't think so. Sociopaths and other anti-social types may do perfectly well on their own without need for morality. That raises an interesting point but I hope it is not a matter of debate that the concept 'The Prime Minister of the United States' is meaningless and has no referent completely independent of the statement. Gayness, however, has meaning. In that sense, the original sentence is already a mixing of a valid concept and an invalid concept just like the two sentences used later. After that, the controversy comes down to whether or not a statement including a meaningless concept can have meaning despite it. It seems silly to acknowledge a statement when necessary information is not given. Example: "P is gay." True or false? What you don't know is that I know someone whose name is P. You most likely do not. I can definitely state its true/false state. You cannot. Even so, your inability to discern it does not mean that my answer is a lie. Therefore the problem is that, at least from your perspective, I did not even make a complete statement. The subject is as good as missing. If the subject of the statement is not understood by anyone, it can be classified an incomplete statement. Have at this: " is gay." True or false? Like you, I see no reason why a meaningless concept should be given meaning by the context it is used in. Therefore I presume that any statement containing a meaningless concept is rendered meaningless by containing it.

As I understand it, several people have attempted to derive the rules of arithmetic from pure reason. Peano's axioms, which you referenced, are examples of the groundwork used for such logical derivations. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about the definition of mathematics. In any case I am referring to a similar thing. About the misconception, that is very interesting. I can't help but notice that these groups still have a concept of logic and quantity, if not standalone quantitative identity. The relative and distinct concepts of 'less' and 'more' are important to the basis of number theory. It seems undeniable that binary logic is an implicit requirement for temporal perception and thought, and that this at least shows across all groups. As for the "Peano is Italian" example, I do not see how these would affect the actual mechanics of the reasoning. For example, while each group may associate the name with a different person, that does not necessarily mean that they will use different logical rules to reach their conclusion. It seems to me that the way "Peano is Italian" is interpreted depends on differences in the the perceived premises rather than differences in the rules that are applied to said premises. Or at least not mutually exclusive sets of rules (since they could each use different subsets of the whole system to tackle the same problem).

Hmm. I'm not so sure about these definitions of subjective and relative...? Consider the following argument: Under this distinction, moral subjectivism is closer to moral relativism; they are both misnomers. Isn't that simply a clash of definitions, not meaning?

Studying common mistakes is a good place to start.

The core morals exist by evolutionary necessity. Branches of our species that did not have an innate value against murder would not survive due to infighting and endless cycles of revenge. Compared to morals against murder and theft, cruelty and fairness to outsiders are mostly irrelevant to the survival of the species. Slavery of other races is in line with evolutionary incentives to continue one's own genetic heritage at the expense of others. There are species of ants who are highly specialized to be composed almost entirely of warriors. They survive in their natural ecosystem by stealing the eggs of other species of ants and raising the young of those species to be their workers. If the slave species acts out they are killed by the warrior species. If the warrior species stops enslaving weaker species, it will starve out and die. Meanwhile, a warrior ant that kills a fellow warrior will be killed by its own species. Many humans developed in a similar way to these ants. Where the ants developed simple instincts to keep them from killing each other, humans have more complex systems of thought due to introspection. Morality was probably born out of introspection about these innate instincts. About Maths: Maths is not true unless we assume those axioms without proof. Those axioms are unproven and unprovable by their nature. Many different proofs for mathematics have been presented, but they all fail to be complete at a basic level due to relying on axioms. In other words, it is possible for other valid systems to exist. Maths is a system we humans developed and came to an agreement on out of necessity, not objective truth. In theory, humans should be able to construct a moral theory by assuming basic axioms the same way they did with the core of mathematics. This is not possible in my opinion. Morality does not share a common perception or logic like mathematics does. While mathematics relies on axioms, they are axioms that are inherent to the way our minds work. It does not seem possible for us to think outside of the constraints of mathematics. Morality has no such common system. Even the most basic morals such as those against murder are only true on a grand social scale. There are exceptions to that moral rule within public opinion and private opinion alike. We interpret the world in mathematics and have no choice in the matter. It is intrinsic to our being. Morality is not. Morality is something that we impose upon our environment based on the way we would prefer things to be rather than the way things are. We are perfectly capable of imagining and comprehending alternative moralities. It is not a universal necessity. Even in our own lives, our personal morals change when our desires change or when we find that our moral rules do not truly serve our desires. There can be no true agreement while the range of human ambition remains so limitless. It is impossible for all humans to agree on even something as basic as that that which helps survival is morally good. Not all people have self-preservation or care for the survival of others. Species-preserving morality persists because it aids natural selection, but it is has never been consistent and cannot be said to be objectively good simply because of its survival value.

That explains so many things.

I keep reading this as 'over a thousand babies'. It won't stop happening.

I think we just dropped it and never took it private. I have the public bits but not the private ones.

Forbidden

Checked. Looks like the closest we came was a talk about religion/Satanism? Oh well. Better than most.

Eccentric and curious. Good qualities. He was annoying when I first showed up.

I actually do now that you mention that.

Ah, yes. I remember now. The things.

Maybe. What was the subject?

See what I mean?

I have no friends who like talking about philosophy as much as me. ; ~ ;

Episode 49. Julian is the least compelling main character but he's not unlikable.

You're just saying that because he's the youngest.

Julian is turning out to be quite clever.