2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, this is an unfortunate (if not wholly unexpected) turn. Has it come to lashing out already? You're not going to like this, but thrashing against the unavoidably true, perfectly logical, paradigm-smashing argument that I have made is very common, and is rooted in fear. All antagonism is rooted in fear.

I only fear the harm you do to others by behaving unethically due to your factual relativism. I don't fear the growth of your ideology as I fear, for example, extremist fundamentalist Islam. Your beliefs are too transparently absurd, which is why I don't think they need to be argued against.

This forum is largely dedicated to being a space for discussion of carnism, which is a belief many people hold and as such is very valuable to argue against. Factual relativism is a pointless discussion.

At this point, my main fear is wasting time on pointless discussions when something more productive could be discussed instead. I also have other things to do.

Let me be overwhelmingly clear: If you continue to try to argue against the validity of logic, you will be banned for violating forum rules.
If you'd like to continue the discussion on logic, I guess you can start a thread in the off-topic fun section. It's not fun for me to discuss, it's annoying.

How long before you simply remove me from the site to avoid having to address the immovable object that has been placed before you?

Probably the next post, unless you'll follow the forum rules as asked. I don't want to, but there's a limit to what can be productively discussed and you're wasting people's time. As you correctly identified, you're immovable on this point. It is unfalsifiable to you, and while you can not prove it, neither can it be disproved to you.

This is why I have asked you to, for the sake of argument, assume logic is valid as conventionally regarded, and address the actual questions and arguments in this thread without this massive off topic tangent questioning the standard understanding of logic itself.

If nothing else I've said convinces you that my position is essentially Socratic, your desire to issue me the metaphorical hemlock in order to shut me up should serve well enough.

The fact that you think that's indication of a Socratic method only adds to your insanity.

We also don't allow people to just argue from the Bible without any logical reasoning or evidence (unless the discussion is about the Bible itself and premised on that idea). It's pointless; if you don't share their faith in scripture, that just derails conversations. Does that mean an argument asserting Biblical scripture as proof is Socratic?

Please believe me when I say that I'm not interested in stirring up trouble just to be a pain in the ass;

Then just do ask asked and, for the sake of conversation, assume conventional views of classical logic and science. Then we can continue with conversation.

You might appeal to the is-ought problem. You might question the idea of moral certainty. You might question the integrity of current scientific practice (without undermining the logic behind the idea of bias control).

Strictly speaking, we could even talk about science itself as long as you assume logic, since we can at least arrive at scientific methodology and value through logic.

There are many productive conversations we could have, but you're stuck on this dead-end one.

What I've said must be addressed before claims of objective morality can even be considered.

No it doesn't, not as long as we clarify that we're assuming a classical view of logic and of objective reality in general.
Work under those assumptions so we can have a productive discussion that stems from those.

It doesn't matter if you agree with those assumptions or not. At least we can have a conversation if you assume those things. If you do not, there is no debate to be had. We're not going to spend days arguing over unfalsifiable concepts like hard solipsism.

If we make your assumptions that there is no objective reality and no way to know anything, then obviously any discussion on morality is pointless jabber about our feels.

The only way these discussions are substantial or meaningful, and even the only way they're remotely interesting, is if we assume that there is an objective reality that we can know some things about.

And, relative to the above quote, everything that everyone does is done for one reason only -- because they "love the feelings" they get.

That's yet another unsubstantiated assertion from you about the objective reality you don't believe in.

I suspect you're not intelligent enough to engage in an actual conversation, so you're circling the drain with this nonsense instead because it makes you feel smarter than everybody else. You're too delusional to grasp that we understand your point and see it as meaningless unfalsifiable blather that is not worth discussing.
You think it couldn't possibly be that we're just not interested in wasting time on endless discussion over unfalsifiable nonsense, and we actually want to have discussions framed by logic and science. Instead, you assume we feel threatened or afraid of the EPIC TRUTH BOMB you think you're dropping on us. "Face-palm" doesn't cut it here.

Like I said, if you really want to you can open such a discussion in section "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun". People who are interested in discussing whether logic is true can go there to waste time bashing their heads against a wall.

Ok, I admit it. I don't know if reality is objective or not.

Then assume for the sake of argument here that it is objective so we can move on with an actual discussion predicated on that assumption.

Prove objectivity to me now, and I will concede and be grateful.

You don't seem to know what an unfalsifiable claim is. It doesn't mean the claim is true.

You have made the extraordinary claim of an objective reality, and have nowhere demonstrated why it should be accepted beyond raw, unabashed assumption.

The assumption is required to have a productive conversation about meaning in the world, and it's required to participate in topical discussions on this forum. I cited the forum rules as proof of the latter.
If you can not assume this for the sake of argument so we can move on, you need to find somebody else to annoy.

My first post to you did just this! Faith-based claims? Where? Quote me.

I neither care, nor do I have time. You made a number of assertions about reality being subjective, which I took as pretty clear assertions that there is no objective reality. Since you disregard logic, I can see how this A then B, B then C, therefore A then C may be lost on you.
We will not be discussing this further here.

Go to "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun" if you want to start a thread discussing these things.

What argument have I not addressed? You have asserted that morality is proved objective via logic, but have not demonstrated the logic.

Did you read the thread?
That's what was being discussed before you derailed the conversation.

Yes, I have said that logic and science are ultimately subjective, and have given concise arguments to support the claim, which have yet to be refuted.

I clearly refuted them in one of the last longer posts I made. I won't do it again, it's off topic.
Go to "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun" if you want to question the objectivity of logic further.

Your essential position is merely an assumption -- that reality "must be" objective.

Standard views on logic are required to participate in this forum as per the forum rules.

This is the extraordinary claim. You are charged with demonstrating how it is so.

You are charged with assuming it is so, because without doing it discussion is pointless, and such discussion is regarded as off-topic and against the forum rules because it annoys people and wastes time without the possibility of productive outcome.

You can assume it for the sake of argument here, you can go to "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun" to speculate on this nonsense, or you can be banned.
This isn't complicated, and it's not up for debate.

The validity of logic is the ONE thing we don't discuss here because it's pointless and it's a prerequisite for meaningful conversation on everything else.
Communities are allowed to define the limits of what they wish the discuss and the topical issues of their forums. If you disagree and continue violating the forum rules, you will be asked to leave. You are being rude.

My only claim is that it has not been proven, not that reality definitively is not objective.

The claims are unfalsifiable, it's pointless to discuss them. This forum is based on logic, accept it or go away. You are disrespecting the form rules, derailing conversation, and generally being rude.

Yikes. When you start talking about what's "reasonable", the conversation has gone off the rails.

No, it did that the moment you disregarded logical argument by calling it subjective.

To claim objectivity, there must be certainty; and as you've stated, science does not grant certainty.

I already explained why this is incorrect.

Nobody has the slightest idea what's going on past the nose on their face; it's all just preferential assent and degrees of faith.

This is where it's obvious that you have no knowledge of or regard for science at all.
This is exactly the problem science was adopted to address.

Science exists not to give us certainty, but to give us some glimpse at what's around us from a view as unbiased as possible. It exists to give us a sense of probability and provisional knowledge.
A level of certainty comparable to that science demonstrates is reasonable; only a level of certainty less than or greater than is what's based on faith. It's the difference in certainty actually held compared to the degree that is reasonable that amounts to faith.

It's the worst kind of intellectual malpractice to equate anything less than perfect certainty to a complete ass-pull. You're in company with Sye Ten and other anti-science apologists on that one.

If you will accept logic for the sake of argument, you may open a thread to discuss science, since the validity of the methodology can be demonstrated from logic.

So you deny that humility leads us toward relating more peaceably with others in these discussions?

It may or it may not. I don't think it does, no.
However, here I'm pointing out where you continually make certain claims about objective reality while rejecting the claim that reality is objective.
You have no basis to argue for peace, just your feels. Whether the world would be more peaceful is a question of objective reality.

If you will assume standard views of logic and objective reality for the sake of argument, we could discuss the consequences of the subjective reality views with respect to "peace" in objective reality.

I apologize for stating this in the absolute; I merely meant to state my intentions, my hopes, and to submit them for consideration.

You should apologize for the entire derailed conversation, because it's all a testament of your feelings when you relinquish claims of objective reality. Your only purpose here could be to talk about your feels, and that's not what this forum is for. It's for philosophical discussion premised upon the acceptance of standard views of logic. You've been exceptionally rude, and we have been exceptionally tolerant and accommodating of your rudeness in attempt to reason with the unreasonable.

All you have to do is prove objective reality logically, and we can move on to the objectively-derived ethics that you've suggested. Despite what you seem to think, I have no desire to linger on abstractions any longer than necessary.

I'm not going to disprove something that's an unfalsifiable belief. All of my arguments have been based on standard application of logic.
All you have to do is assume those views for the sake of argument, then we could have an actually productive conversation.

Either reality is objective and logic has objective value, or it isn't.
If it isn't, none of this has any meaning and this discussion is pointless.
If it is, then we can have a conversation.

So let's assume it is. That's what's required by the forum rules, and it's what's required to have any kind of interesting discussion.
If you want to assume it is not, or question whether it is or is not (a futile endeavor) then start a new thread in "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun".

If you refuse to assume it is for the sake of argument in the topical forum sections (and you won't move the discussion to the off-topic section), then you are in violation of the forum rules (very permissive forum rules that restrict speech and thought as little as possible while still keeping conversations meaningful and avoiding pointless derailments like "reality is subjective tho"), and you must unfortunately be banned.

I would greatly prefer that you not be banned, and instead follow the forum rules and out of courtesy for other forum members make the topical assumptions to engage in meaningful discussion.

Summary:

1. If you want to continue "arguing" for the subjectivity of logic and reality, move the discussion to "Off-Topic Discussion - Fun" by starting a thread there. A link, for your convenience: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewforum.php?f=15
2. If you want to continue discussion in the topical sections, follow the forum rules and assume standard views about logic. Assume there is an objective reality for the sake of argument so we can actually have a productive discussion.
3. If you are willing to do neither of those, then you stand in violation of the very permissive forum rules and you have to be banned. It's just rude for you to derail discussions like this for issues that are not topical to the forum. I think we already have confirmation from multiple members that you're in violation of rule 1.

I'm sorry if the threat of banning makes you feel like a martyr who is being censored. You're not a martyr, nobody misunderstands you or is threatened by your ideas, they're just unfalsifiable and pointless to discuss and against the forum topic; you're just being an asshole.
If you want to play "the game" here, you will follow the rules.

EDIT:

I don't think explaining my own subjective beliefs will serve the conversation in any meaningful way.

As a connoisseur of irony, this was delicious.
This is the whole point of the first forum rule.
If you assume reality is subjective, then ALL you could possibly talk about are your own subjective beliefs and feelings, which is all you've been talking about here. None of it serves the conversation in any meaningful way. Not even your subjective beliefs about our subjective beliefs about objective reality.
In order to have a meaningful conversation, we must operate under certain assumptions about logic and objective reality. That's how this works.

[AMP3083]

At this point, my main fear is wasting time on pointless discussions when something more productive could be discussed instead. I also have other things to do.

Let me be overwhelmingly clear: If you continue to try to argue against the validity of logic, you will be banned for violating forum rules.
If you'd like to continue the discussion on logic, I guess you can start a thread in the off-topic fun section. It's not fun for me to discuss, it's annoying.

I have some reading to catch up to as I was absent for the last few hours. Come on now, Brim, is this anyway to treat a new member of the forum who is legitimately into having this discussion? Ok it's "pointless" for you but other members seem to be curious for answers, and really if people think this is pointless as well, they can simply just stop responding.

I have other things to do as well between this, working out, job and working on my channel but I'm not gonna complain about that. Plus, you've come this far with lengthy replies, so I don't know if your "I have other things to do" is a legitimate excuse.

It's not so much as the forum rules (though I will grant you some leverage on that) but mostly it's because you're just annoyed (by your admission), I noticed this a few threads back, but there it is in a nutshell -- a new member is under the threat of ban simply because you're annoyed. Are you just afraid that Brian is actually making a point?

[BrianBlackwell]

If you think meta-ethical subjectivism is the closest thing we have to the truth, do you believe in:

A) Moral relativism - "there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world."

B) Moral absolutism - "a moral principle can be relative to an individual, but not relative to circumstances"

or C) Divine command theory - "moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds."

Well, from the commonly-accepted perspective of an assumed objective reality, I don't think there's any question that moral relativism most accurately reflects the situation. The absence of an objective standard, coupled with individual differences (neither of which can be denied), necessitates this position.

Of course, it must be considered that I am speaking from an entirely different paradigm; one that does not take anyone else into account at all. From the individual's perspective, there is only one scale -- yours (or mine, as it were), because this is the only one we have access to. All others are merely perceptual experiences of the words and actions of others.

These meager perceptions cannot be described as morality, as this would require an illogical act of inference. We do not have access to the thoughts and emotions of anyone else, and these are fundamental aspects of an individual's morality (as I described above in a previous post).

[BrianBlackwell]

Now if we were to have a televised debate with that Mayan about morality we would try to convince him that this action actually causes more harm than good.

Yes, this is about all we can do (short of killing, jailing, or exiling the Mayan). The moral discussion is much like a discussion about art or politics -- one subjective opinion vs. another in an attempt to bring the other person around to our point of view.

[BrianBlackwell]

...wouldn't it be better for you to follow what is more likely to be true?

Shouldn't you apply the same amount of caution when dealing with logic and morality? ...I assume you don't go around killing people... I also assume that if someone tried to rape a member of your family, you would try to stop them. Wouldn't you?

This would be on a case-by-case basis, but generally, yes; I will take the opinion of science in the absence of a more compelling option. Consequently, I hold the belief that the sun will arrive tomorrow at the appointed time. I would never assert this belief if pressed, however, as it is subjective, being faith-based.

I have described all human action as being motivated by a desire to move toward an improved emotional state. I feel better when acting in accordance with my conscience, and my conscience balks at the idea of killing someone. This would certainly ruin my afternoon (and maybe my life), as I believe I would feel horribly guilty, and I believe from past experience that it may also result in me being jailed.

I also notice that I feel happier when people are not attacked violently, so I would put an end to an attack in progress, if I could. I have a sense of justice that corresponds with that of the majority on these points.

You'll notice that the only significant difference between my treatment of these subjects and the perspective being offered by some others here is that I acknowledge the subjectivity of these decisions. They are based upon my beliefs, preferences, and experience of moving along an emotional scale. I do not refrain from killing because it is objectively wrong, and I do not expect the sun because science has proved the Earth's movements to be objectively true. I have no basis for asserting these things. I simply choose to believe and act in the aforementioned manner, and thus am less likely to insist that you do the same or discredit yourself as an intellectually or morally bankrupt person.

[AMP3083]

I'd like to backtrack to this question.

Do you believe reality is subjective? Is the sky only blue if everybody agrees it is blue?

What if the sky is really not "blue"? Isn't the sky only blue because that's the label we applied to it? Then what we're actually agreeing on is the color blue.

[BrianBlackwell]

@Brimstone

I do not accept the accusations you've made, but I will do my best to conform the direction of my replies to suit your preference while I am a guest in your house.

I do not dispute the validity of logic, only the claim that logic can be used effectively to establish an objective moral standard, which is precisely on-topic. Other than that, I've just been answering questions and addressing points raised by others.

On what basis do you assert that it is immoral to eat meat? I don't see how you can do this without first establishing a moral code which I am logically bound to accept, and so I fear the conversation will retread over old ground.

I see no logical inconsistency in holding to a moral code that permits the slaughtering of animals while denying the slaughtering of human beings. What's the difference between the two objects of slaughter? One is human, the other is not.

Any difference is enough to justify a differentiation in treatment in the absence of a moral standard which prohibits it, because there is no logical fallacy if animals and humans are not demonstrated to be the same. I have established a difference, and have thus evaded any logical inconsistency.

What prohibits me from establishing a moral system that says "killing pink pigs is wrong, but killing black pigs is fine"? I am still a moral person, living in full adherence to a moral code. Unless you can demonstrate why a particular moral code compels my assent by logical necessity, we're all just wagging our opinions around, shouting "mine is better than yours!" ... and this sort of behavior is at the root of all major conflicts, often with disaterous results.

[AMP3083]

If you assume reality is subjective, then ALL you could possibly talk about are your own subjective beliefs and feelings, which is all you've been talking about here. None of it serves the conversation in any meaningful way. Not even your subjective beliefs about our subjective beliefs about objective reality. In order to have a meaningful conversation, we must operate under certain assumptions about logic and objective reality. That's how this works.

I don't see how talking about our subjective experiences doesn't serve conversation in any meaningful way. People do it all the time; your first roller-coaster ride, first kiss, a day at the beach, first time eating vegan food, your 4th psychedelic drug trip, etc. It doesn't have to be a serious topic, it's just called having a conversation (or chit-chat in some cases).

[NonZeroSum]

Well, [apart] from the commonly-accepted perspective of an assumed objective reality, I don't think there's any question that moral relativism most accurately reflects the situation. The absence of an objective standard, coupled with individual differences (neither of which can be denied), necessitates this position.

Did you mean apart from? If yes then we just ask that you accept the assumption for the purpose of usefulness in discussing subjects logically, a minimal essence that we are all engaged with that consequentialists would like us all to apply to the greatest benefit of all. If you want to talk about existence preceding essence we can do that. Even a divine command theory that has explicitly stated meta-physics.

However if you just want to keep pushing an unfalsifiable belief in how treating everything completely relative is all we should care about then go to the off topic section, I opened up a thread for you - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3208 - If you don't like the title name, open your own one.

I don't see how talking about our subjective experiences doesn't serve conversation in any meaningful way.

Because it doesn't help us get any closer to the usefulness of such a moral or philosophical framework.

[brimstoneSalad]

AMP, I was responding to his assertions about our motivations for shutting down such a pointless conversation.
You essentially echo his asinine claim that we're "afraid".

Are you just afraid that Brian is actually making a point?

This kind of conspiracy theory bullshit is even more annoying than the argument itself. Please apologize for asking this again in attempt to provoke and annoy us after it was already answered by multiple people including in the post you quoted.

Again, no, we are not afraid he's right, we're afraid that this is a waste of time. That's a legit concern, I have other posts I could have made in that time but I posted in this thread instead (you'll see I posted less elsewhere).
It's pointless, not topical to this forum, and can not bear fruit.
As I said, the concern is wasting time. I explained this thoroughly. I was explaining at more length before because I thought he might be brought to reason, as I was correcting some misconceptions.

It became clear this wasn't possible, thus the mandate was made more clear. I prefer to explain first rather than just cite the forum rules and say "no". It's also probably important for my posts to be there for people reading this conversation, so they can understand why this kind of thing is not discussed here.

In hindsight, I probably should have cut off the conversation earlier and cited the forum rules, and saved myself an hour. It is what it is. I'm not falling for the sunk cost fallacy.

Ok it's "pointless" for you but other members seem to be curious for answers,

I really don't think they are. They're addressing the issue, but there's no real curiosity on whether Logic is valid or whether objective reality exists. I think we're all pretty clear on that being a pointless diversion.

and really if people think this is pointless as well, they can simply just stop responding.

Want to start a conversation about Doll houses here and then complain about that being called off topic too?
I told him he can continue this in the off-topic section if he really wants to.

We have certain topics in certain sections. The question of whether objective reality exists really isn't relevant to this forum, and whether logic is valid isn't really relevant to philosophy in general.

a new member is under the threat of ban simply because you're annoyed.

To the contrary, I should have just pointed him at the forum rules the first time he said it. It was out of bending-over-backwards courtesy that the conversation was allowed to go on this long and that I responded at such length (I usually do not). It was giving him the benefit of the doubt and every chance to come to reason through conversation before laying down the law -- which was unfair, but to his advantage, not the other way around.

I don't see how talking about our subjective experiences doesn't serve conversation in any meaningful way. People do it all the time; your first roller-coaster ride, first kiss, a day at the beach, first time eating vegan food, your 4th psychedelic drug trip, etc. It doesn't have to be a serious topic, it's just called having a conversation (or chit-chat in some cases).

That's great, but in the off-topic section. It's not topical to the other forum sections here.
You're welcome to start topics on any or all of those things in the off-topic - fun section.