Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Yes. That makes sense. Should I save questions for after you are done or ask as I please?

[Red]

The more important issue seems to be your skepticism of the legitimacy of rational secular ethics.

Why?

Why do you believe morality does not exist?

I wasn't making a declarative statement, I was simply just asking a question. Now that's not to say that you can't acknowledge the possibility. For all I know, it could be just a construct of human perception. Or it could be how we react and treat other beings.

Do differing "opinions" about the age of the Earth mean that time doesn't exist, or that the Earth doesn't? Or are some people just wrong?
Do differing "opinions" about the sum of 2+2 mean that math doesn't exist, or has no meaning or use? Or are some people just idiots who can't add correctly?

Here's the difference between your examples and the topic at hand; the examples you stated are facts. They are the absolute truth until proven otherwise. Morality is strictly up to the person. We can all agree the torture and killing of animals is pretty immoral correct? But we all know the vast majority tends to disagree, or aren't concerned with the topic. Bottom line, facts are facts, and morality is up to interpretation. That is, unless you can convince me that absolute morals do in fact exist, and to have that morality means to be, well, moral. Sam Harris has a book that says if we mimimize total human suffering that would be a say, "scientific" way of conducting morality.

[brimstoneSalad]

I wasn't making a declarative statement, I was simply just asking a question.

You sure made one here:

Here's the difference between your examples and the topic at hand; the examples you stated are facts. They are the absolute truth until proven otherwise. Morality is strictly up to the person. We can all agree the torture and killing of animals is pretty immoral correct? But we all know the vast majority tends to disagree, or aren't concerned with the topic. Bottom line, facts are facts, and morality is up to interpretation.

That's a strong assertion, without evidence or reasoning.

Unless you count the bandwagon fallacy as reasoning: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

I already explained how this applies equally to anybody who asserts the Earth is 5,000 years old, or that evolution is false.
Many people believe that, and many people are just wrong.

"We can all agree that evolution is true correct? But we all know the vast majority tends to disagree, or aren't concerned with the topic. Bottom line, facts are facts, and evolution is up to interpretation."

Can you understand how absurd your assertion is, and how it's no different from any creationist or factual relativist who denies science, or thinks reality itself is just a matter of opinion, and everybody is right?

Morality is a matter of fact. Just one that a vast majority of people fail to understand consistently.

Sam Harris has a book that says if we mimimize total human suffering that would be a say, "scientific" way of conducting morality.

Harris is on the right track in some respects. That is, at least, how you have to start thinking about it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes. That makes sense. Should I save questions for after you are done or ask as I please?

You can ask as you please, if anything needs clarifying.

Consequentialism, as you know, has to have a goal. What you're struggling with is how that goal is defined, correct? That is, whether it is maximizing well being as Harris argues, or maximizing the number of pickles in the universe. And whether that goal should be the same across the board, or different for every person?

[Red]

That's a strong assertion, without evidence or reasoning.

I have a feeling you are misinterpreting my argument. Explain to me what you thought the premise of my argument was.

Unless you count the bandwagon fallacy as reasoning: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Please explain how exactly I used a bandwagon fallacy. I wasn't using it to defend or even make any claims. I was claiming everyone has their own opinions and perspectives on morality. I in no way said that since the majority says something makes it true. If, that is how you saw my argument. Expand if you will.

I already explained how this applies equally to anybody who asserts the Earth is 5,000 years old, or that evolution is false.
Many people believe that, and many people are just wrong.

I do recall saying that facts are absolute truths. Morality is, like I said up to the person at hand. If you can explain otherwise, I will take your word for it.

"We can all agree that evolution is true correct? But we all know the vast majority tends to disagree, or aren't concerned with the topic. Bottom line, facts are facts, and evolution is up to interpretation."

It seems you're under the notion that there are absolute morals which equate to fact. I'm the opposite.

Can you understand how absurd your assertion is, and how it's no different from any creationist or factual relativist who denies science, or thinks reality itself is just a matter of opinion, and everybody is right?

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Morality is a matter of fact. Just one that a vast majority of people fail to understand consistently.

I love how you just make that statement then just move on without showing any evidence. Look, I'm actually looking to not be right here. Just prove to me how morality is absolute fact, not philosophy. From the looks of it, you have it all figured out.

Harris is on the right track in some respects. That is, at least, how you have to start thinking about it.

well it really all depends.

How 'bout this? What do you define as morality? Not the dictionary definition, your own definition.
Oh, and you didn't answer my first question.

[brimstoneSalad]

I was claiming everyone has their own opinions and perspectives on morality.

Not everyone has a personal perspective on it. E.g. utilitarianism is a broadly shared perspective.

There are a number of different "camps" that make up the vast majority of perspectives.

However, roughly that "many people have different perspectives" can be said about the origins of the Earth, or universe, or life as well.
Some "perspectives" are just wrong.

I do recall saying that facts are absolute truths. Morality is, like I said up to the person at hand. If you can explain otherwise, I will take your word for it.

Why not, instead of claiming it's up to the person, say that you don't know if it's absolute truth or subjective?

By claiming it's up to the person, you're taking a side here. Moral subjectivism is not the default position. You're making a claim by supporting it.

Just prove to me how morality is absolute fact, not philosophy. From the looks of it, you have it all figured out.

This is like demanding a crockoduck as proof of evolution -- it's a misunderstanding of the subject.

Morality is like mathematics. It IS philosophy, AND fact. Philosophy is not the opposite of fact.
Science itself is actually just a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is just about knowledge.

There are logical/axiomatic truths in the universe, like 2+2=4, and then there are empirical matters.

Morality is among the former, while using the later when those axioms are put into practice (like physics is based on math, but uses empirical measurements as well).

How 'bout this? What do you define as morality? Not the dictionary definition, your own definition.

I don't have a special definition. Morality is defined by the golden rule, as it has been since conceived.
Consideration for the interests of others.

Oh, and you didn't answer my first question.

Because once you understand that there is a right and wrong thing to do, you can understand how making the small effort to affect political change is one of those right things to do and why.
If you don't believe in right/wrong, then it may all seem pointless to you.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I'm having trouble understanding paraconsistency. Like at all. The most I can grasp is that it's logic which allow for contradictions and doesn't demand consistency. Is that correct? Could you elaborate?

Another thing. I am aware that consequential veganism is a consistent system, but can't other consistent systems be constructed? A complete rejection of morality would be a consistent system, correct? Would it be on equal stance with veganism for being consistent?

[Red]

Not everyone has a personal perspective on it. E.g. utilitarianism is a broadly shared perspective.

Did I say that moral perspectives cannot be shared? Ok maybe it sounded like I implied it.

There are a number of different "camps" that make up the vast majority of perspectives.

What kind of "camps"?

However, roughly that "many people have different perspectives" can be said about the origins of the Earth, or universe, or life as well.

And there is of course a right answer. But can we be sure that out prevailing theory is correct about the earth's origins? I dunno maybe.

Some "perspectives" are just wrong.

oh

Why not, instead of claiming it's up to the person, say that you don't know if it's absolute truth or subjective?

I kinda did both simultaneously. Maybe not within the same breath.

By claiming it's up to the person, you're taking a side here. Moral subjectivism is not the default position. You're making a claim by supporting it.

which claim?

This is like demanding a crocostimpy as proof of evolution -- it's a misunderstanding of the subject.

Well I never claimed too understand. That's why I'm asking you.

Morality is like mathematics. It IS philosophy, AND fact. Philosophy is not the opposite of fact.
Science itself is actually just a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is just about knowledge.

Hm. Explain.

There are logical/axiomatic truths in the universe, like 2+2=4, and then there are empirical matters.

So what you're saying is, there are absolute morals that should be treated as fact, eh?

Morality is among the former, while using the later when those axioms are put into practice (like physics is based on math, but uses empirical measurements as well).

Makes perfect sense to me!

I don't have a special definition. Morality is defined by the golden rule, as it has been since conceived.
Consideration for the interests of others.

oh that kind of definition

Because once you understand that there is a right and wrong thing to do, you can understand how making the small effort to affect political change is one of those right things to do and why.
If you don't believe in right/wrong, then it may all seem pointless to you.

It doesn't seem to have a point to me, yes.

[brimstoneSalad]

What kind of "camps"?

Divine command (which has one for each religion)
Deontology
Virtue Ethics (which can be grouped with others depending on the claims)
Consequentialism

Consequentialism breaks down into a number of theories, some bunk, some potentially valid.

I kinda did both simultaneously. Maybe not within the same breath.

Which kind of contradict each other. Like saying "I don't know if god exists or not. But god exists."
Either you don't know, in which case you shouldn't make the claim, or you do.

which claim?

Saying it's up to the individual what is moral. That's a claim of moral subjectivism.

Morality is like mathematics. It IS philosophy, AND fact. Philosophy is not the opposite of fact.
Science itself is actually just a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is just about knowledge.

Hm. Explain.

Science comes from a conclusion of the philosophy of epistemology, and used to be called "natural philosophy".
Philosophy told us HOW to do the scientific method, because we knew humans were biased and we needed unbiased means of determining what objective reality was (if there was one at all).

Science has its roots in philosophy, which dictates how we should observe things in order to avoid bias. Otherwise, you just have biased observation (which is the same thing that leads people to believe god exists, because they have anecdotes or heard a voice or something).

There are logical/axiomatic truths in the universe, like 2+2=4, and then there are empirical matters.

So what you're saying is, there are absolute morals that should be treated as fact, eh?

Yes. Not empirical fact, like "it's 50 degrees outside", but logical fact, like all bachelors are unmarried, because bachelors are unmarried men (axiomatic). It's unchanging fact (the rules themselves). Application of the rules requires scientific knowledge of the circumstances, since the rules involve minimizing violation of others wills, we have to understand what others will, and how we can minimize that harm.

oh that kind of definition

It's pretty much universal, and it's consistent.

Ever heard the joke:

Q: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
A: "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

Words have certain meanings, both practically and philosophically (for a reason) as concepts, and we can't just redefine morality into something arbitrary and nonsensical like maximizing the number of pickles in the universe.

It doesn't seem to have a point to me, yes.

You don't have to be a moral person if you don't want to, since there's no god waiting to send you to hell for being bad.
Do you want to be a good person, or not?

Does life have any point at all? No, not unless you give it one by making the choice to lead a meaningful one.

[Red]

Divine command (which has one for each religion)
Deontology
Virtue Ethics (which can be grouped with others depending on the claims)
Consequentialism

that makes sense

Consequentialism breaks down into a number of theories, some bunk, some potentially valid.

ok

Which kind of contradict each other. Like saying "I don't know if god exists or not. But god exists."
Either you don't know, in which case you shouldn't make the claim, or you do.

as in the sense what it may or may not be.

Saying it's up to the individual what is moral. That's a claim of moral subjectivism.

how so?

Science comes from a conclusion of the philosophy of epistemology, and used to be called "natural philosophy".
Philosophy told us HOW to do the scientific method, because we knew humans were biased and we needed unbiased means of determining what objective reality was (if there was one at all).

interesting

Science has its roots in philosophy, which dictates how we should observe things in order to avoid bias. Otherwise, you just have biased observation (which is the same thing that leads people to believe god exists, because they have anecdotes or heard a voice or something).

that explains a lot to be honest

Yes. Not empirical fact, like "it's 50 degrees outside", but logical fact, like all bachelors are unmarried, because bachelors are unmarried men (axiomatic). It's unchanging fact (the rules themselves). Application of the rules requires scientific knowledge of the circumstances, since the rules involve minimizing violation of others wills, we have to understand what others will, and how we can minimize that harm.

oh, so like no exceptions.

It's pretty much universal, and it's consistent.

who told you that?

Ever heard the joke:

Q: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
A: "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

no

Words have certain meanings, both practically and philosophically (for a reason) as concepts, and we can't just redefine morality into something arbitrary and nonsensical like maximizing the number of pickles in the universe.

well why not

You don't have to be a moral person if you don't want to, since there's no god waiting to send you to hell for being bad.
Do you want to be a good person, or not?

define "good person".

Does life have any point at all?

Well maybe, depending on what you mean by that. If in the sense that you just live to live, as is the initiative for all life on earth, or something along those lines. Philosophically speaking, probably not.

No, not unless you give it one by making the choice to lead a meaningful one.

[/quote]
So what will matter?