Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Deleted]

Facts, axioms and assumptions are all one in the same in mathematics.

To make it even more clear look at the definition of postulate

postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

No, there is a reason why you write Mathematical proof to a Mathematical thesis.

You have to prove it, you do not just assume it.

This is the basics of math.

[Deleted]

You use logic pretty often when earning degrees in mathematics. Your entire argument is still just assuming moral subjectivity and since you continue to fail to understand that, I see no point in continuing this conversation. It's also just rather embarrassing you continue to argue that facts and assumptions are different in terms of logic.

fact - a thing that is indisputably the case.
axiom - a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.
assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

You really think those definitions are different at all?

- - - Updated - - -



Facts, axioms and assumptions are all one in the same in mathematics.

To make it even more clear look at the definition of postulate

postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

I already edited it, but you are still wrong. A fact still isn't the same as an assumption, you think it will happen because you deduced it when you assume something, but a fact isn't an assumption.

And again, i did not assume it, i know this to be fact.

[Deleted]

I'll go ahead and take your faulty understanding of the definitions and raise you my six years of studying mathematics. An axiom is a postulate. To postulate means to assume, or take something as fact. These are all the same thing in mathematics.

- - - Updated - - -



No shit? You make several assumptions and take things as fact to be able to prove anything in math.

luckily math and math logic have no baring on this discussion what so ever. And luckily everyone on the interwebs has done years of maths, is a fire fighter and a self made milionair, its so good to have these people around.

[Deleted]

I'll go ahead and take your faulty understanding of the definitions and raise you my six years of studying mathematics. An axiom is a postulate. To postulate means to assume, or take something as fact. These are all the same thing in mathematics.

- - - Updated - - -

No shit? You make several assumptions and take things as fact to be able to prove anything in math.

And his statement still holds true, a logical fact is not a logical assumption.

In math, it might be. Is math the explicit sense of logic?

[Shadowferal]

I'll say it again, if one refuses to believe in good and evil then that person can't know what morality is.
Don't need math (humanity isn't a robot)
Just need experience and the ability to learn from it.

[Deleted]

If logic has no barring on a discussion with you then I do not wish to discuss anything with you.



Yes.

Logic yes, numbers no, so not maths logics no.

And where we discussing maths or just logic? It was not maths.

[Deleted]

If logic has no barring on a discussion with you then I do not wish to discuss anything with you.

Yes.

And if Math is the explicit sense of logic, why are you remotely trying to discuss morals?

Clearly, you are not in the right field for that, if your explicit sense of logic is Math.

[Deleted]

Well, if someone were a utilitarian, then their morals would obviously be tied to logic. Not that I'm claiming that particular view, but I don't see how morals and logic have to conflict in anyway. In fact, I believe logic is an important part of morals.

I know there were a few other people posting before that have an obvious experience in mathematics. I'm curious what they'll say about the whole fact, assumtion, axiom thing. @Garnier Fructis @Nymrohd

But that is a value that you place on logic, it is not inherent of morals in of it self. And don't you know what religion is? It seems as clear as day that these people do not have any place for logic in their book, and still they claim "morality". This is because morality is in the eye of the beholder, there is no such thing as "ultimate morality" because that would pretty much involve hive-minds/mind-control, as everyone would have to have the same information and think exactly the same for "ultimate morality" to be possible.

[Deleted]

Well, if someone were a utilitarian, then their morals would obviously be tied to logic. Not that I'm claiming that particular view, but I don't see how morals and logic have to conflict in anyway. In fact, I believe logic is an important part of morals.

I know there were a few other people posting before that have an obvious experience in mathematics. I'm curious what they'll say about the whole fact, assumption, axiom thing. @Garnier Fructis @Nymrohd

Morals are inheritly based on emotions, what you emotionally feel is wrong.

Even if you put your beliefs, based on some imagined formula, you are still discussing a sensation of feeling - A sense of being.

Superimposing numbers on your feelings, does not eradicate the basis of that you are still arguing feelings, and is a complicated strawman at best.

The numbers serve to create a superimposed system that in turn, creates the goal posts and what the emotional sensations are to entail based on what your supposed achievement is.

That, however, is still not directly putting logic into Morals. You merely put a structure of Logic, ON TOP, of what you would normally feel.

'Tis a fancy attempt at intellectualizing what you actually feel, and trying to somehow have the argument of "I am Rational" not contradict "I am Emotional".

[Deleted]

Morals are inheritly based on emotions, what you emotionally feel is wrong.

Even if you put your beliefs, based on some imagined formula, you are still discussing a sensation of feeling - A sense of being.

Superimposing numbers on your feelings, does not eradicate the basis of that you are still arguing feelings, and is a complicated strawman at best.

The numbers serve to create a superimposed system that in turn, creates the goal posts and what the emotional sensations are to entail based on what your supposed achievement is.

That, however, is still not directly putting logic into Morals. You merely put a structure of Logic, ON TOP, of what you would normally feel.

'Tis a fancy attempt at intellectualizing what you actually feel, and trying to somehow have the arguemnt of "I am Rational" not contradict "I am Emotional".

Indeed it is just a matter of someone trying to justify their morals through viewing their own set of morals and say, "see, im right". In the end morals are nothing more then a set of educated opinions/feelings that someone has.

[Deleted]

I don't believe morals have to necessarily be based on emotions. Otherwise, you're right. Emotions are often the cause of conflicting moral viewpoints. You could very well base morals on logic completely. You can also of course logically factor in people's emotions and how those affect the outcome to determine the most logical answer and consider that to be morally correct. Emotions and logic don't contradict each other. Irrational emotions however, do conflict with logic. Not all emotions are irrational.

For the 6th or something time, morals are nothing more then things that you give emotional value to. So they are always based on emotions, even when you base them on logic, as you give emotional value to the fact that it has to be logic. Something that is irrational to you may be of enormous emotional value to someone else, that doesn't make either of you right or wrong. All you can do is judge someone else their morals by your own morals.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm all sorts of spun around by the last page of discussion on math and logic. Mostly confused by what 'math is the explicit sense of logic' means.

[Simulacrum]

You're assuming that one set of morals can't be wrong simply because they are morals. That is assuming they are subjective, that is assuming what you are trying to argue, that is a bad argument. The statement you must argue is:

If people have different moral views, then morality is subjective.

Simply saying, "Yes, this is true." Is not an argument. You are simple taking the entire statement as true which assumes BOTH parts. To actually argue the statement we assume the first part which everyone agrees is a valid assumption. Now, you must show why people having different view points implies morality is subjective. You cannot just say, "because it does." I argue that some people's morals are wrong. If you try to refute that by saying, "morals can't be wrong." That is in fact, assuming they are subjective.

No, I can say that, because that's what it means. If people have different views on morality, then morality is subjective. And, as we can observe, people have different views on morality, therefore morality is subjective.

You may not like this, but you don't have to like it for it to be true. It is true whether you like it or not.

Incidentally, yes that guy who wants to rape children or whatever wouldn't - objectively - be any more "right" or "wrong" than you are about the matter of whether or not people should be doing that. Doesn't mean you wouldn't be justified in doing whatever you deem necessary to stop him. It just means you can't hide behind God Wills It when you do so - you have to take all responsibility for your own behaviour on yourself instead.

[Garnier Fructis]

No, I can say that, because that's what it means. If people have different views on morality, then morality is subjective. And, as we can observe, people have different views on morality, therefore morality is subjective.

You may not like this, but you don't have to like it for it to be true. It is true whether you like it or not.

I'm on the subjective morality side, but this... this argument just doesn't work. That there are different views doesn't automatically imply that there isn't a correct view and that most of us are simply wrong.

[Simulacrum]

I'm on the subjective morality side, but this... this argument just doesn't work. That there are different views doesn't automatically imply that there isn't a correct view and that most of us are simply wrong.

Yes it does. Morality is defined by what people think about what is wright and wrong. If people think different things, there cannot be objective morality. You may as well say what the objectively prettiest colour is, or what objectively the best movie is. These things are based on values, which are subjective.

Well, I suppose in a sense you might argue that, say, for accomplishing specific goals, you might have an objectively 'best' set of morals for doing that, but that's already starting from a subjective position (e.g. the accomplishment of subjectively decided upon goals, based upon subjective value judgements).

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes it does. Morality is defined by what people think about what is wright and wrong. If people think different things, there cannot be objective morality. You may as well say what the objectively prettiest colour is, or what objectively the best movie is. These things are based on values, which are subjective.

There are different definitions of morality, so I guess if you define it in this specific way then you win automatically. But that's sort of like Lawrence Krauss 'answering' the question of how something comes from nothing by simply defining 'nothing' to be the vacuum. Imo, it's sleight of hand.

[Simulacrum]

There are different definitions of morality, so I guess if you define it in this specific way then you win automatically. But that's sort of like Lawrence Krauss 'answering' the question of how something comes from nothing by simply defining 'nothing' to be the vacuum. Imo, it's sleight of hand.

I've read no other definition, outside of slight rewordings that mean exactly the same thing. Given that you provide none either, I find it disingenuous for you to be the one accusing me of "sleight of hand" here.

[Deleted]

I made a thread on morality a few days ago. And I got laughed at for even mentioning objective morality as I'm sure the detractors will remind you "there is no such thing".

No you got laughed at because you claimed you were "more moral than most people".
After flameing someone 3 mins before that on a different thread for having a different opinion.

[Garnier Fructis]

And fact=assumption=axiom in mathematics.

I mean, there is a sort of double usage of the term axiom like in 'group axioms' or 'vector space axioms', where the axioms are requirements in a definition and not statements taken to be true.

But I'm almost certain that that's not what they were going for.

[Deleted]

Yeah, that's why I stopped replying since he literally admitted to not caring to adhere to logic. I mostly tagged you because of them claiming a fact and assumption are different things in logic, not language semantics. I'm assuming their confusion is with the semantics because yes, I suppose you can say a fact is different than an assumption in the sense that you do no have to assume a fact as it is already fact, but taking something as fact is exactly the same as assuming it in the world of logic. And fact=assumption=axiom in mathematics. Sorry to drag you back into this mess lol.

Or you know, you have a serious reading disability, i said we where not talking maths and maths logic. This is morals we are talking about, not numbers. And then, and then, you actually get it! A fact isn't the same as an assumption as you do not have to assume a fact as it already is a fact. That you then regress into numbers again is your problem, not ours, we are not discussing maths here, we are discussing morals.