And what's Spicer going to say, "Oh yeah, it's all legit!" First of all, he's not even one of the 10, and you can tell Trump wouldn't let him in on it. And second of all, if he did say that, it would just make tons of people bombard him with more questions about it, which he really knows nothing about. This is top level Military Intel at the highest level of Classified Clearance.
Yes, because truth and goodness are inextricably bound up together. Denying the objectivity of morality is self defeating, because you need the idea "it is objectively good to seek the truth" in your worldview as a grounding to make any statements.
I would argue that you don't necessarily NEED the viewpoint "it is objectively good to seek the truth," but I agree that it would be the most beneficial stance for all parties involved.
When you make the statement "morality is not objective" you are making a truth claim.
So, we can now ask "why did you make that truth claim?"
But without the bedrock of "Because it is objectively good to seek the truth" you can have no grounding for making any truth claims.
There is no objective truth. There is a truth that best serves you, your family, your community and your species. But that doesnt make it the objective truth, it makes it the best possible truth that can be played across time. Analyzing truths across our history is the only way to determine which one serves us best but in no means does it make it an objective fact.
define what is "Truth". Because if truth and goodness are explicitly bound and my "truth" differs from your "truth" then our morals are not the same, meaning morality is not objective.
Even truth, really. It might be seen as a fallacy but if something is true to human senses and modes of external validation we’ve developed and appears consistent on Earth at this point in time, does that mean it is true everywhere and always?
I’m sure there is some good writing on it, sort of the philosophy of science stuff that can be hit or miss. If mathematics is a constructed abstraction that seems to make most things fit when it is overlaid across observable phenomena, how useful is it as an objective yardstick by which we analyze the world? What might we miss by disregarding its rigidity? What if the truth is in the errors and bits that don’t conform to our modes of testing?
Meaning like, a number is only an extrinsically attributed quality, but a numbered thing only exists in relation to the presence/absence of other points in a set?
I'd argue that falls under the umbrella of ethics. ethics is what we define in our video as the societal framework, whereas morality is something that is intrinsic to the individual. The question is, is that intrinsic morality the same for everyone?
26 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-08-09
And what's Spicer going to say, "Oh yeah, it's all legit!" First of all, he's not even one of the 10, and you can tell Trump wouldn't let him in on it. And second of all, if he did say that, it would just make tons of people bombard him with more questions about it, which he really knows nothing about. This is top level Military Intel at the highest level of Classified Clearance.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 TaysSecondGussy 2019-08-09
Sometimes when I poop, it feels like being sodomized but in reverse. Is that like a physics thing, or do I need more fiber?
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
push harder faggot
1 TaysSecondGussy 2019-08-09
It hurts. 😠
1 PM_ME_UR_RARE_PUPPER 2019-08-09
Yes, because truth and goodness are inextricably bound up together. Denying the objectivity of morality is self defeating, because you need the idea "it is objectively good to seek the truth" in your worldview as a grounding to make any statements.
1 Eigenbros 2019-08-09
I would argue that you don't necessarily NEED the viewpoint "it is objectively good to seek the truth," but I agree that it would be the most beneficial stance for all parties involved.
1 PM_ME_UR_RARE_PUPPER 2019-08-09
Let me draw out the absurdity:
When you make the statement "morality is not objective" you are making a truth claim.
So, we can now ask "why did you make that truth claim?" But without the bedrock of "Because it is objectively good to seek the truth" you can have no grounding for making any truth claims.
Thus, the position is self-refuting and absurd.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
There is no objective truth. There is a truth that best serves you, your family, your community and your species. But that doesnt make it the objective truth, it makes it the best possible truth that can be played across time. Analyzing truths across our history is the only way to determine which one serves us best but in no means does it make it an objective fact.
1 PM_ME_UR_RARE_PUPPER 2019-08-09
Is that an objectively true statement?
1 WiggityWatchinNews 2019-08-09
Considering that's impossible to know, no it's not.
1 PM_ME_UR_RARE_PUPPER 2019-08-09
That's just self-refuting though: "You cannot know if anything is objectively true" is itself a truth claim.
1 WiggityWatchinNews 2019-08-09
Is it neccesarily an objective truth claim? I think not. To our understanding, it's impossible to know, but our understanding may be flawed.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
define what is "Truth". Because if truth and goodness are explicitly bound and my "truth" differs from your "truth" then our morals are not the same, meaning morality is not objective.
1 TaysSecondGussy 2019-08-09
Even truth, really. It might be seen as a fallacy but if something is true to human senses and modes of external validation we’ve developed and appears consistent on Earth at this point in time, does that mean it is true everywhere and always?
I’m sure there is some good writing on it, sort of the philosophy of science stuff that can be hit or miss. If mathematics is a constructed abstraction that seems to make most things fit when it is overlaid across observable phenomena, how useful is it as an objective yardstick by which we analyze the world? What might we miss by disregarding its rigidity? What if the truth is in the errors and bits that don’t conform to our modes of testing?
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
There is actually an interesting debate in mathematics as to which is more real, the number or the things that it represents.
1 TaysSecondGussy 2019-08-09
Meaning like, a number is only an extrinsically attributed quality, but a numbered thing only exists in relation to the presence/absence of other points in a set?
Weird either way.
1 diggity_md 2019-08-09
Aw man, I love it when confused xoomers stumble in here on accident
1 Eigenbros 2019-08-09
we're about that honk-life over here, my friend.
1 Chapose 2019-08-09
Morality isnt objective except when I am deciding what is morally acceptable.
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
Morality is not objective. But some moral sets are more productive to us as a species.
1 Eigenbros 2019-08-09
I'd argue that falls under the umbrella of ethics. ethics is what we define in our video as the societal framework, whereas morality is something that is intrinsic to the individual. The question is, is that intrinsic morality the same for everyone?
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
no, its not. saved everyone the watch.
1 Eigenbros 2019-08-09
Round of applause for Corporal-Hicks! 👏 👏 👏 He's done it again, folks.
1 Zero5urvivers 2019-08-09
Morality is a spook, take the Stirnerpill
1 automatic_cluck 2019-08-09
Only when you're a pedo