What should Morals and Ethics be?

[caveman1917]

What don't you think?
How does social behaviour evolve?

I don't think it's in my best interest to take a hit to my well-being just because you claim so.

Sorry, I added a bit there: Things that would be immoral for us would not be for a cat.

You haven't even defined yet what "morality" is...

 

[Belz...]

What contradiction?

For Yog-Sothoth's sake, man, pay attention to your own posts.

You said that "by the same logic" I could do the exact opposite as I've done. That's a contradiction. One thing and its opposite cannot be true at once.

They are both arguments from ignorance

No, they're not. I'm not saying that something doesn't exist. I'm saying that from our perspective it doesn't exist, for all practical purposes, because whether or not it does makes no difference.

Four years on this forum, you should be familiar with this sort of thing.

 

[caveman1917]

For Yog-Sothoth's sake, man, pay attention to your own posts.

You said that "by the same logic" I could do the exact opposite as I've done. That's a contradiction. One thing and its opposite cannot be true at once.

I never said anyone should consider it both to exist and not to exist. What I said is that your argument from ignorance (concluding that it doesn't exist) can equally be used to conclude it does exist.

No, they're not. I'm not saying that something doesn't exist. I'm saying that from our perspective it doesn't exist, for all practical purposes, because whether or not it does makes no difference.

And I'm saying that from our perspective it does exist, for all practical purposes, because whether or not it does makes no difference.

Four years on this forum, you should be familiar with this sort of thing.

Bad logic and fallacies such as arguments from ignorance? Yep, all too familiar with it...

 

[Belz...]

I never said anyone should consider it both to exist and not to exist.

You said that the same logic can be used to reach two contradictory conclusions from the same premises. It cannot.

What I said is that your argument from ignorance (concluding that it doesn't exist)

That's not what an argument from ignorance is. You might want to get familiar with logical fallacies if you're going to throw them around.

And I'm saying that from our perspective it does exist, for all practical purposes, because whether or not it does makes no difference.

That makes absolutely no logical sense. If it did existed IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. It wouldn't if it didn't.

Bad logic and fallacies such as arguments from ignorance? Yep, all too familiar with it...

Intimately, it turns out.

 

[Cheetah]

First of all, no it's not a basic scientific fact. It was a conclusion YOU made from your premises, one that happens to NOT follow from those premises. Survival/reproduction are not the same thing as well-being.

I never said that.
Why do you think brains evolved? Why do you think they are so successful? How do they manage to survive and reproduce so well?

Second, even were it true, it wouldn't make it objective. Objective and universally agreed upon are not the same thing.

Is it a fact or just universally agreed upon that all animals with brains feel the need for food when they run low on resources?
It's more than a fact, it's a necessity. All animals that did not feel like food, didn't eat and didn't survive.

 

[Belz...]

I never said that.

You concluded that well-being was the "universal and objective goal of all natural minds" from animals seeking food. But as I'll explain below that's anthropomorphism.

Why do you think brains evolved? Why do you think they are so successful? How do they manage to survive and reproduce so well?

Depends on the species. I think you'll find that houseflies don't really spend any time caring about well-being, instead focusing on reproducing as fast as possible, given their short lifespan and the fact that their predators hunt them down mercilessly. Like Krill, their strategy is to make a **** TON OF BABIES.

Humans are somewhat unique in our care about others' well-being. But even if it were universal among humans, which it clearly isn't, it wouldn't make it objective because it would still depend on perspective, in principle.

Is it a fact or just universally agreed upon that all animals with brains feel the need for food when they run low on resources?

Again I'm talking about your conclusion, not your premises.

 

[caveman1917]

You said that the same logic can be used to reach two contradictory conclusions from the same premises. It cannot.

Not from the same premises.

That's not what an argument from ignorance is. You might want to get familiar with logical fallacies if you're going to throw them around.

That's exactly what an argument from ignorance is.

That makes absolutely no logical sense. If it did existed IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. It wouldn't if it didn't.

whether or not it does makes no difference.

For someone complaining about contradictions that aren't there you sure seem to miss the glaring ones you yourself posit. So which one is it, it makes no difference whether it exists or not, or it makes a difference if it exists? And if it makes a difference if it exists, then absence or presence of said difference could be used to know whether it exists or not, and the answer would hence not be unknowable.

Intimately, it turns out.

Indeed, we've even had this discussion before where you rejected logic in favour of arguments from ignorance. I hence conclude that you are incapable of learning, which makes my effort here just as pointless as it did back then, but I'll just go with it for a while.

 

[Belz...]

Not from the same premises.

Then it's irrelevant to the discussion. Why even mention it?

That's exactly what an argument from ignorance is.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. I've explained to you exactly how it's not.

So which one is it, it makes no difference whether it exists or not, or it makes a difference if it exists?

You're right, I worded the latter one wrong.

If something cannot be detected in principle, then it does not exist for all practical purposes. That's the fundamental thing here. But in order to say that something exists you have to be able to detect it. And at that point it makes a difference.

Indeed, we've even had this discussion before where you rejected logic in favour of arguments from ignorance. I hence conclude that you are incapable of learning, which makes my effort here just as pointless as it did back then, but I'll just go with it for a while.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! You are hilarious. You can't get basic logic right, you can't get fallacies right. You don't even know how claims and evidence work, but I'm the one who is incapable of learning.

Sure thing, comrade.

 

[caveman1917]

If something cannot be detected in principle, then it does not exist for all practical purposes. That's the fundamental thing here. But in order to say that something exists you have to be able to detect it. And at that point it makes a difference.

Not at all. If something cannot be detected in principle, then it exists for all practical purposes.[*] See, I can argue from ignorance too

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! You are hilarious. You can't get basic logic right, you can't get fallacies right. You don't even know how claims and evidence works, but I'm the one who is incapable of learning.

Sure thing, comrade.

* Of course, there are no such practical purposes, but that's true in either case. It follows directly from "cannot be detected in principle."

 

[Belz...]

If something cannot be detected in principle, then it exists for all practical purposes. See, I can argue from ignorance too

Again, that is not what an argument from ignorance is.

You clearly don't understand the argument, but rather than ask for clarification, you're descending into ridicule.

Let's start with this: how do you determine if something exists?

Of course, there are no such practical purposes

Reality doesn't exist! You heard it here first, folks!

 

[caveman1917]

Again, that is not what an argument from ignorance is.

Sure it is. Again, to conclude that P is true, or false for that matter, because one does not know whether P is true or false is an argument from ignorance. Such as "I've not seen evidence that other reality-bubbles don't exist therefor other reality bubbles exist" or "I've not seen evidence that other reality-bubbles exist therefor other reality-bubbles don't exist." You're just arbitrarily choosing to go with the latter one, and hilariously call it logic and knowledge.

Let's start with this: how do you determine if something exists?

Same way you determine if something doesn't exist. Is there an elephant in my kitchen? I go and see. If I see one then it exists and if I don't see one then it doesn't.

That's, of course, not even going into the point that every claim that "X exists" can be turned into a claim that "Y doesn't exist" and vice versa, so there's really no way to differentiate in the first place. For example if the elephant doesn't exist then there exists a bunch of air in my kitchen, and if the elephant does exist then that bunch of air (the elephant's body volume) does not exist.

 

[Belz...]

Sure it is. Again, to conclude that P is true or false because one does not know whether P is true or false is an argument from ignorance.

Notice that this isn't what I'm doing. You're missing, or ignoring, an important part of what I've been saying.

Same way you determine if something doesn't exist.

Wow, no actually. I didn't expect you to get that wrong.

In order to determine that something exists, you have to observe it. You cannot observe that something doesn't exist except in very specific instances where the constraints on its existence are very well-defined.

So what's the difference between not observing something that exists and not observing something that doesn't exist?

Is there an elephant in my kitchen? I go and see. If I see one then it exists and if I don't see one then it doesn't.

It's an invisible elephant. Look harder.

Ever heard of proving negatives?

 

[caveman1917]

Wow, no actually. I didn't expect you to get that wrong.

In order to determine that something exists, you have to observe it. You cannot observe that something doesn't exist except in very specific instances where the constraints on its existence are very well-defined.

Again, every observation of the existence of something is also an observation of the non-existence of something else - a lot more something else's at that. Namely, an observation of the non-existence of any alternative. If I observe the existence of the elephant in my kitchen then at the same time I'm observing the non-existence of that bunch of air, or indeed of a whole lot of other things.

So what's the difference between not observing something that exists and not observing something that doesn't exist?

Nothing.

It's an invisible elephant. Look harder.

But it's not really an elephant. Look harder. See? You can do this thing just as well for the "X exists" as "X doesn't exist."

Ever heard of proving negatives?

Yes, we do it all the time. We already discussed this and I gave you various sources which clearly showed you wrong, hence my conclusion that you're incapable of learning, as you today simply repeat the same canards.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing.

Marvelous. That was my entire point as well.

But it's not really an elephant.

Sure it is. Some elephants are invisible, don't you know? Intangible, too. I swear it's there.

Yes, we do it all the time.

Not outside of the limited instances I talked about. There's a reason why we require the claimant to show evidence for their positive claims. The alternative is unworkable.

 

[Cheetah]

You concluded that well-being was the "universal and objective goal of all natural minds" from animals seeking food. But as I'll explain below that's anthropomorphism.
Depends on the species.

No, I'm talking about originally, in general. That there are many species with brains now, just attests to it's success.

I think you'll find that houseflies don't really spend any time caring about well-being, instead focusing on reproducing as fast as possible, given their short lifespan and the fact that their predators hunt them down mercilessly. Like Krill, their strategy is to make a **** TON OF BABIES.

I think you will find it is ALL they care about. It is what motivates and drives them to make a **** TON OF BABIES. It is why feelings and emotions evolved. They are the driving force behind behaviour.

Humans are somewhat unique in our care about others' well-being. But even if it were universal among humans, which it clearly isn't, it wouldn't make it objective because it would still depend on perspective, in principle.

Actually you only have to care about your own well-being to logically conclude others care about theirs. Staying objective you would then conclude that your own well-being is not more important than someone else's and vice versa. Purely following logic, you would then have to care about others.

Or you could use science and examine why humans are somewhat unique in our care about others' well-being. Science can then explain why it is the best strategy to care.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm talking about originally, that there are many species with brains now just attests to it's success.

Sorry, success of what?

I think you will find it is ALL they care about. It is what motivates and drives them to make a **** TON OF BABIES. It is why feelings and emotions evolved.

They make a **** ton of babies because most of them will die. The rest will live a thankless life, but many will have their own babies. What's well-being got to do with any of that?

Actually you only have to care about your own well-being to logically conclude others care about theirs. Staying objective you would then conclude that your own well-being is not more important than someone else's and vice versa. Purely following logic, you would then have to care about others.

No, that doesn't follow. You could just as logically conclude "to each his own".

Or you could use science and examine why humans are somewhat unique in our care about others' well-being. Science can then explain why it is the best strategy to care.

Yes but it can't tell you if that's good or bad.

 

[caveman1917]

Marvelous. That was my entire point as well.

So do you retract your objection to concluding that something exists because we can not know whether it exists, or do you retract your conclusion that something doesn't exist because we can not know whether it exists?

Sure it is. Some elephants are invisible, don't you know? Intangible, too. I swear it's there.

Seems to me that you can't conclude that it's there, and swearing won't change that. Just like you can't conclude that it isn't there.

 

[Roboramma]

Not an actual bubble. It's all in the same bubble, just too far in it for us to see.

I've already explained all this.

It's a separate bubble in the sense that it's causally disconnected. This is actually what cosmologists mean when they talk about a multiverse. Unless you think the concept of the multiverse doesn't exist, then this is what that's referring to.

(The rate at which space is expending between different regions can differ, and that's how inflation can enter the picture.)

 

[Belz...]

So do you retract your objection to concluding that something exists because we can not know whether it exists, or do you retract your conclusion that something doesn't exist because we can not know whether it exists?

I don't need to retract anything since you've just agreed with me.

Have a nice day.

 

[Roboramma]

You can't conclude that they exist either. You're stuck either way. You know how positive claims work.

You can conclude they exist in exactly the same way that we conclude anything exists.