An Ethical Reason To Be Good

[Belinda]

I am more interested in the Truth than being right, but I think I'm right.

Can something be right if it's not true?

Nothing is absolutely true. Nothing is absolutely right. Both what is right and what is true are relatively right and relatively true. "Relative to" who dictates which is which, or relative to the better argument.

[RCSaunders]

I am more interested in the Truth than being right, but I think I'm right.

Can something be right if it's not true?

Nothing is absolutely true.

You do see the contradiction in that sentence don't you?

Actually, if something is not absolutely true, it is not true at all. Nothing can be partially true anymore than a woman can be partially pregnant.

[Belinda]

Can something be right if it's not true?

Nothing is absolutely true.

You do see the contradiction in that sentence don't you?

Actually, if something is not absolutely true, it is not true at all. Nothing can be partially true anymore than a woman can be partially pregnant.

I know what you mean. It seems to reflect itself. But even if an all- knowing deity said "Nothing is absolutely true" it would be correct for Him to say "Nothing is absolutely true" if He referred to the earthly frame of reference, as did I.

Pregnancy is not a case in point as pregnancy is arbitrarily defined by modern medical science, for practical, clinical purposes. When Queen Mary the elder daughter of Henry XIII was 'pregnant' there were no tests . Everyone was hoodwinked by a tumour.

[RCSaunders]

Nothing is absolutely true.

You do see the contradiction in that sentence don't you?

Actually, if something is not absolutely true, it is not true at all. Nothing can be partially true anymore than a woman can be partially pregnant.

I know what you mean. It seems to reflect itself. But even if an all- knowing deity said "Nothing is absolutely true" it would be correct for Him to say "Nothing is absolutely true" if He referred to the earthly frame of reference, as did I.

Pregnancy is not a case in point as pregnancy is arbitrarily defined by modern medical science, for practical, clinical purposes. When Queen Mary the elder daughter of Henry XIII was 'pregnant' there were no tests . Everyone was hoodwinked by a tumour.

I wasn't using pregnancy as an example, I was using it as an analogy. Unless you believe (as some claim to around here) that contradictions can be true, some facts are always either/or but not both, like dead or alive, pregnant or not pregnant, existent or not existent. It is not, however, whether one knows the fact or not, it's not what one knows or thinks they know that determines what is true or not true, but the facts that one's knowledge is about. If one thinks, "she is pregnant," and she is, in fact, pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is true, but if she is, in fact, not pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is false.

Facts, themselves, are neither true or false, they just are what they are. True and false only pertain to what we think and believe, what we state as propositions. Pointing at a piece of fruit and saying, "that is an apple," is true, if the piece of fruit is an apple, and only if it is an apple, else it is false.

[Belinda]

You do see the contradiction in that sentence don't you?

Actually, if something is not absolutely true, it is not true at all. Nothing can be partially true anymore than a woman can be partially pregnant.

I know what you mean. It seems to reflect itself. But even if an all- knowing deity said "Nothing is absolutely true" it would be correct for Him to say "Nothing is absolutely true" if He referred to the earthly frame of reference, as did I.

Pregnancy is not a case in point as pregnancy is arbitrarily defined by modern medical science, for practical, clinical purposes. When Queen Mary the elder daughter of Henry XIII was 'pregnant' there were no tests . Everyone was hoodwinked by a tumour.

I wasn't using pregnancy as an example, I was using it as an analogy. Unless you believe (as some claim to around here) that contradictions can be true, some facts are always either/or but not both, like dead or alive, pregnant or not pregnant, existent or not existent. It is not, however, whether one knows the fact or not, it's not what one knows or thinks they know that determines what is true or not true, but the facts that one's knowledge is about. If one thinks, "she is pregnant," and she is, in fact, pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is true, but if she is, in fact, not pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is false.

Facts, themselves, are neither true or false, they just are what they are. True and false only pertain to what we think and believe, what we state as propositions. Pointing at a piece of fruit and saying, "that is an apple," is true, if the piece of fruit is an apple, and only if it is an apple, else it is false.

Someone or some individuals ,at some point in time , decided what was to be categorised as apple. Therefore when I say "That is an apple" that fact relates to social reality but it does not relate to absolute reality. If there be absolute reality we cannot know or experience it.

[RCSaunders]

I know what you mean. It seems to reflect itself. But even if an all- knowing deity said "Nothing is absolutely true" it would be correct for Him to say "Nothing is absolutely true" if He referred to the earthly frame of reference, as did I.

Pregnancy is not a case in point as pregnancy is arbitrarily defined by modern medical science, for practical, clinical purposes. When Queen Mary the elder daughter of Henry XIII was 'pregnant' there were no tests . Everyone was hoodwinked by a tumour.

I wasn't using pregnancy as an example, I was using it as an analogy. Unless you believe (as some claim to around here) that contradictions can be true, some facts are always either/or but not both, like dead or alive, pregnant or not pregnant, existent or not existent. It is not, however, whether one knows the fact or not, it's not what one knows or thinks they know that determines what is true or not true, but the facts that one's knowledge is about. If one thinks, "she is pregnant," and she is, in fact, pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is true, but if she is, in fact, not pregnant the thought, "she is pregnant," is false.

Facts, themselves, are neither true or false, they just are what they are. True and false only pertain to what we think and believe, what we state as propositions. Pointing at a piece of fruit and saying, "that is an apple," is true, if the piece of fruit is an apple, and only if it is an apple, else it is false.

Someone or some individuals ,at some point in time , decided what was to be categorised as apple. Therefore when I say "That is an apple" that fact relates to social reality but it does not relate to absolute reality. If there be absolute reality we cannot know or experience it.

There's another one of those terms. What would, "absolute," reality be? Is an apple not real? If an apple is not, "absolutely," real, how could it be more real than it is? If I say the word, "apple," meaning an actual apple, how does it make any difference if I learned the word or made it up myself. It's not the word that is real, but what the word identifies, which in epistemology is called its referent and is what the concept means.

The meaning of a concept is not determined, "socially." Everyone who uses the word apple to identify the same kind of fruit is using the same concept, not because it is socially agreed to, but because each individual has learned that word and uses it to think apple, because it's a good and useful symbol. I think you are basing your idea on the belief that the purpose of language is communication. It is not. The purpose of language is to enable one to identify existents so one can think about them and know them. A secondary purpose of language is communication, but one must know and think something before they can communicate it, don't they.

[Advocate]

There is a selfish reason to do anything good and a selfless reason to do any evil.

For example; Only the best You can have the best life for You. Dedicating yourself to the good of Future You will always pay off (until you're interrupted by death). Everyone wants to be a better person and if we can collaborate on finding a way they can do so that is also compatible with our own interests, everyone can win. Nothing is a total loss if you learn from it. Everything helps you attain your goals one way or another if you frame it that way. Happiness is created by helping others.

Each of those maxims leads to generally positive results and none requires you give a single fuck about anyone but yourself.

And the other side of the coin, of course; The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The golden rule only works to the extent everyone wants the same thing.

We should be good because a proper understanding of our place in the universe clearly shows that the good of everyone and everything around us is inseparable from our own. Selfishness plus an honest understanding of systems theory is sufficient to harm no one and help everyone.