A brief nicety...

[creativesoul]

I'm not interested in correcting misextrapolation based upon false presupposition.

[chaz wyman]

I'm not interested in correcting misextrapolation based upon false presupposition.

I am, that is why I attacked your nonsense!

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions!
Cat got your tongue?

[creativesoul]

I'm not interested in correcting misextrapolation based upon false presupposition.

I am, that is why I attacked your nonsense!

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions!
Cat got your tongue?

Bah.

[creativesoul]

1. Complex thought/belief requires language acquisition.

2. All moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, and discourse consists of complex thought/belief.

3. Moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, and discourse requires language acquisition.(from 1,2)

4. Simple thought/belief is the basis of complex.

5. The basis of simple thought/belief cannot be moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, or discourse.(from 2,4)

Now, it is evident(to follow suit) that if morality equates to a code of conduct, then it cannot be a property of human thought/belief, but that is exactly what you claimed earlier...

chaz:

It is a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking to assert that morality is an emergent property of the Universe, when there is only evidence to suggest that it is only a property of human thinking.

Now, you've backed yourself into a corner. If the above is true, then it denies the premiss of your own argument.If morality is a property of thought, then it cannot be a code of conduct. Either you must change the definition of morality, or you must admit the incoherence and retract the above. How will you reconcile this?

[chaz wyman]

1. Complex thought/belief requires language acquisition.

Not necessarily - but I'll play along..

It is true to say that evidence of complicated thinking often requires some form of language, but evidence of complicated thinking does not require it, and can be demonstrated by other means.



2. All moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, and discourse consists of complex thought/belief.

If by complex you actually mean complicated - I'll agree. But there is nothing to stop a simple idea leading to a simple rule. It would all depend on what you mean by complicated.

3. Moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, and discourse requires language acquisition.(from 1,2)

In that morality is a set of rules; rules are meaningless without communication - then yes.

4. Simple thought/belief is the basis of complex.

Geee - not even a sentence!!!

This is meaningless. Where are you getting "simple" from?




5. The basis of simple thought/belief cannot be moral/ethical thought/belief, codes of conduct, or discourse.(from 2,4)

4) Has no meaning. And even if it means what you think it means this is a non sequitur. There is nothing here to suggest that a simple thought or belief cannot give rise to a simple moral code.

Now, it is evident(to follow suit) that if morality equates to a code of conduct, then it cannot be a property of human thought/belief, but that is exactly what you claimed earlier...

This is utter gibberish. You are simply talking bollock! Are you SERIOUS????
You have been leading me a merry dance. I was thinking that you were a worthwhile sparing partner, but this logic is useless. It's not even wrong! It's just confused.
It does not even being to address what we have been talking about.
The more I read threads on this Forum, the more I think it is inhabited by Philosophy BA 4th class degree or failures.

chaz:

It is a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking to assert that morality is an emergent property of the Universe, when there is only evidence to suggest that it is only a property of human thinking.

Now, you've backed yourself into a corner. If the above is true, then it denies the premiss of your own argument.If morality is a property of thought, then it cannot be a code of conduct.

All codes of conduct are derived from thinking. Are you really THAT stupid?

Either you must change the definition of morality, or you must admit the incoherence and retract the above. How will you reconcile this?

Dah!! I said it was characteristic of that mode of thinking - not exclusive to it.
People who assert that moral law is a Universal property tend to believe that morality derives from God.
People who believe in non dependant objective truth also tend to make the same mistake, as they have no completely digested the failure of such belief systems even when they pretend to be Atheistic.



Extremely disappointing!!! When did you fail your philosophy degree and where?

[creativesoul]

Try this...

If morality equates to a 'moral'/ethical code of conduct, then it equates to them all, so because of the nature of behavioral codes...

1. What is moral/immoral is subject to, influenced by, and established within individual particular social circumstances.
2. What is moral/immoral is determined by whomever has the power to make the code.
3. Since codes vary, even within a cultural/familial setting, what is moral/immoral is a matter of whatever is believed to be moral.

Thus, the mass genocide of a people is moral behavior for those who believe it to be. Mass genocide is immoral behavior for those who believe it to be. It is, once again, a matter of logic that something cannot be both moral and immoral simultaneuosly. Taking the plunders of war, such as the 'booty' and the women of the conquered, is both moral and immoral simultaneously, depending upon whose code we look at at the time of the event. The same goes for any two codes which simultaneously exist and hold opposing positions. They cannot both be true, as it violates the law of non-contradiction.

Do you have anything to offer other than ad hom egotistical bullshit?

[creativesoul]

creative:

If morality is a property of thought, then it cannot be a code of conduct.

chaz:

All codes of conduct are derived from thinking. Are you really THAT stupid?

Well, if my knowing that X being derived from Y does not make X a property of Y, then... yes. I am that stupid. According to that logic, everything we talk about is a property of thought. Yes, I AM that "stupid", and evidently you're not.

Are there no moderators in this place?

[chaz wyman]

creative:

If morality is a property of thought, then it cannot be a code of conduct.

chaz:

All codes of conduct are derived from thinking. Are you really THAT stupid?

Well, if my knowing that X being derived from Y does not make X a property of Y, then... yes. I am that stupid. According to that logic, everything we talk about is a property of thought. Yes, I AM that "stupid", and evidently you're not.

That would all depend on what you meant by "derived" and "property of" today - wouldn't it?

It might be the case that having the property of is derivative. Or that deriving a thing might be due to its having that property.
It seems that, as well as falling into basic category errors, you are making the mistake of trying to understand a specific case with abstract generalities.
Now, if we came back to the case at hand, I think you will see where your logic has failed you.

Perhaps we should start from the top?





Are there no moderators in this place?

Sure, but they are no usually bothered with low level spats like this one.

[creativesoul]

Meaning is use, and communication is public. I'm getting the distinct impression that you're either disingenuous or do not understand my argument, what little I've given.

You can begin again, if you like.

Tell me, what is it that I mean?

[chaz wyman]

Try this...

If morality equates to a 'moral'/ethical code of conduct, then it equates to them all, so because of the nature of behavioral codes...

1. What is moral/immoral is subject to, influenced by, and established within individual particular social circumstances.
2. What is moral/immoral is determined by whomever has the power to make the code.
3. Since codes vary, even within a cultural/familial setting, what is moral/immoral is a matter of whatever is believed to be moral.

Thus, the mass genocide of a people is moral behavior for those who believe it to be. Mass genocide is immoral behavior for those who believe it to be. It is, once again, a matter of logic that something cannot be both moral and immoral simultaneuosly. Taking the plunders of war, such as the 'booty' and the women of the conquered, is both moral and immoral simultaneously, depending upon whose code we look at at the time of the event. The same goes for any two codes which simultaneously exist and hold opposing positions. They cannot both be true, as it violates the law of non-contradiction.

Do you have anything to offer other than ad hom egotistical bullshit?

You have just proved that the law of non contradiction is a fallacy.
Logic is not about truth, but about the mechanism of evaluating one set of presumptions and premises with others.

All dingbats are morons.
Bert is a dingbat therefore bert is a moron.
If YOU do not judge Bert to be a dingbat then , providing the second part of the syllogism is correct then, for YOU bert is not a moron either.
Logis has nothing to say about the truth value of any of the definitions it deals with. It's just a mechanism for consistency. Logic works equally well with meaningless statements as any other.

Moral and emotional issues are notoriously difficult, and do not submit to logio-mathematical analysis. Even Russell would have agreed. This simple truth is exactly why logical positivism has utterly failed to bring about its utopian vision of social equality and justice, and has said nothing meaningful or useful concerning moral issues in nearly a 100 years.

[creativesoul]

chaz:

You have just proved that the law of non contradiction is a fallacy.

Your position is incoherent, and that was just shown.

Moral and emotional issues are notoriously difficult, and do not submit to logio-mathematical analysis. Even Russell would have agreed. This simple truth is exactly why logical positivism has utterly failed to bring about its utopian vision of social equality and justice, and has said nothing meaningful or useful concerning moral issues in nearly a 100 years.

Why are you constantly changing the subject? Your gratuitous assertions about LP do not interest me. I'm not a positivist when concerning morality. Need I remind you that I do not hold a conventional position on morality? Now, justify your claim that I somehow "proved that the law of non-contradiction is a fallacy."

[Notvacka]

I reject any claim, i think, that morality can be anything beyond which people believe is the right thing to do. To go further would be an appeal to a divine legislative authority; or a set of Platonic values that exist out there in the ether somewhere. In practice there is no 'absolute' from which to draw a distinction between a thing believed and that thing, because, say, if you believe killing is wrong, there is nothing more than that - a belief.

Perhaps you remember that I was trying to address the problem of morality in the old topic "Building Religion From the Ground Up"? viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4768

I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others. The moral system I came up with is similar to the golden rule, and perhaps not always very helpful, but it's clear, simple and doesn't appeal to any diety or Platonic ideal.

I chose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these cear and useful definitions:

good = what I want

evil = what I don't want

right = what others want

wrong = what others don't want

The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.

It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

[chaz wyman]

I reject any claim, i think, that morality can be anything beyond which people believe is the right thing to do. To go further would be an appeal to a divine legislative authority; or a set of Platonic values that exist out there in the ether somewhere. In practice there is no 'absolute' from which to draw a distinction between a thing believed and that thing, because, say, if you believe killing is wrong, there is nothing more than that - a belief.

Perhaps you remember that I was trying to address the problem of morality in the old topic "Building Religion From the Ground Up"? viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4768

I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others. The moral system I came up with is similar to the golden rule, and perhaps not always very helpful, but it's clear, simple and doesn't appeal to any diety or Platonic ideal.

I chose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these cear and useful definitions:

good = what I want

evil = what I don't want

right = what others want

wrong = what others don't want

The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.

It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

Indeed.

But whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so.

Hobbes

[chaz wyman]

chaz:

You have just proved that the law of non contradiction is a fallacy.

Your position is incoherent, and that was just shown.

Moral and emotional issues are notoriously difficult, and do not submit to logio-mathematical analysis. Even Russell would have agreed. This simple truth is exactly why logical positivism has utterly failed to bring about its utopian vision of social equality and justice, and has said nothing meaningful or useful concerning moral issues in nearly a 100 years.

Why are you constantly changing the subject? Your gratuitous assertions about LP do not interest me. I'm not a positivist when concerning morality. Need I remind you that I do not hold a conventional position on morality? Now, justify your claim that I somehow "proved that the law of non-contradiction is a fallacy."

I think we are done here. Please review your opening posts in this thread.

As for moral contradiction. I'm willing to discuss this with a case.
eg.
Is abortion immoral

It is pointless to try to ground morality on logic, as this will show.

[chaz wyman]

Meaning is use, and communication is public. I'm getting the distinct impression that you're either disingenuous or do not understand my argument, what little I've given.

You can begin again, if you like.

Tell me, what is it that I mean?

I really think it for you to explain what you mean.