Discussing - If the laws of logic only exist because of thou…

@Patriot-#1776ConstitutionDisagreementsStarted 1yr agoActive 8mos ago

““The laws of logic DO only exist inside our brains because that is where our thoughts are. Without thought, there is no logic to think of in the first place. The laws of logic do not apply to the universe, WE are applying the laws of logic ONTO the universe.””

If the laws of logic only exist because of thought, why do we need laws of logic to correct our thoughts?

If there is no "objective basis for morality ... [and it] is completely made up" then why have you repeatedly claimed that it is "wrong" to deny a woman her "bodily autonomy" by restricting abortion, and why have also claimed that it is "wrong" for capitalists to "exploit" workers? You never said that you personally believe those to be wrong, rather you claimed that they are self-evidently wrong, and that government, or society, or the maj… Read moreority, or whatever you as an anarcho-marxist call it, has the authority to impose this morality on others via regulation of private business? Why have you claimed that it is "wrong" for me to spread my "Far-right ideology" if there is no such thing as right and wrong? Someone's being terribly inconsistent! And if we can't trust the reliability of the human senses, how can we rely on external tools INVENTED by humans USING THEIR SENSES, to determine truth?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree React Context •••Tell me more Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

6 Replies

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

If the laws of logic only exist because of thought, why do we need laws of logic to correct our thoughts?

What do you even mean by "correct our thoughts"..? And why do you think that thought isn't also just as necessary in doing that? Being introspective of your own thoughts...also requires thought. There is literally no world in which logic is even capable of being used without thought, because that's where it comes from.

If there is no "objective basis for morality ... [and it] is completely made up" then why have you repeatedly claimed that it is "wrong&qu… Read moreot; to deny a woman her "bodily autonomy" by restricting abortion, and why have also claimed that it is "wrong" for capitalists to "exploit" workers?

Because that's how arguments work. I am making the claim that x is wrong, based on the premises of a, b, c, etc...because those are the premises that I personally believe to be true and sound, which is the argumentative justification for my conclusion. That's fundamentally what a moral argument is. If morality was objective, then there would be some means of empirical proof that a specific set of premises were somehow objectively correct, and that all others are somehow objectively wrong, but there is not anything like that, nor would it even be possible to do so. Morals are simply the conclusions to whatever set of premises that you accept or believe in, so the only way to justify your morals to others is through argument. For example, my claim that "denying people their bodily autonomy is wrong" is because I believe in the premise of "all people deserve the right to bodily autonomy", and, argumentatively, anyone who also agrees with that premise should agree with that conclusion. No one is "objectively correct" because it's entirely up to the soundness of your argument based on the premises you accept. This is literally the fundamental basis of what arguments are and why we do it...I'm not sure why you are acting like this concept is so complex or new.

You never said that you personally believe those to be wrong, rather you claimed that they are self-evidently wrong...

No one claims that their morals are "self-evident" because that would just show a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality is. Additionally, no one needs to clarify that their moral claims are "just what I personally believe" because that's what ALL morals are...that would be completely redundant to point out, especially in an argument where the entire purpose is to make a case for why others should accept your reasoning over another. If you disagree with any of my moral claims, then you would attempt to question, and/or counter-argue, the premises by which my conclusion is based on, and it's entirely possible (and likely) that the end result is simply that we hold different values, and thus accept different premises. That's why morality is ultimately subjective. It sounds like you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality is, OR you have a complete misconception of what arguments are, because these are pretty basic concepts of human interaction.

...government, or society, or the majority, or whatever you as an anarcho-marxist call it, has the authority to impose this morality on others...

This is not necessarily an argument of morality, but of law and/or philosophy. Because morality is subjective, and every person will have their own morals and basis for their morality, this means that groups of people (such as: a country) will need some way to decide which morals will be acceptable within this group of varying morals. Different people will accept and reject different morals, so how does a society determine which ones they will and will not tolerate? And, obviously, different people will have different answers on how the best way to determine this is (this is literally the most fundamental basis of what "governments" are). This is just the concept of "laws" and "power" and "hierarchy" and all that goes into "who should have the power to make decisions on what people should or should not be allowed to do in society", and that's why people argue...

Why have you claimed that it is "wrong" for me to spread my "Far-right ideology" if there is no such thing as right and wrong?

Because I believe that your values and/or ideas are bad...that's literally what my argument is about in the first place. It's no different than why anyone else would argue that MY values and/or ideals are bad: they disagree with my premises and thus argue against them. What exactly do you think people argue about these things for..?

Secondly, "morality is subjective" does not mean "there is no such thing as right or wrong", it simply means that there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE right or wrong (at least in regards to morality). I believe that MY morals are "right", because my personal values justify them as such, whereas YOU believe that YOUR morals are "right", because your personal values justify them as such (even if your values are just religious convictions). Neither of us are OBJECTIVELY right or wrong, which is why we rely on argumentation to defend the soundness of our premises, in order to convince each other, or others, to agree with our values/reasoning.

And if we can't trust the reliability of the human senses, how can we rely on external tools INVENTED by humans USING THEIR SENSES, to determine truth?

Because tools provide a basis of objectivity for everyone. For example, a thermometer is a tool we made to objectively measure temperature; every thermometer will give the same, repeatable results for any given situation we use it in, because it utilizes an objective metric of measure that individual people cannot provide on their own. One person can tell you it feels hot outside, and another person can tell you it feels cold outside, but a thermometer will always produce an objective value for any given temperature, which will be the same value for anyone who reads it. Tools like this provide a single objective metric that any person can use, thus providing a basis for universal data (which is necessary for any scientific evidence), instead of relying solely on the subjective experiences and perceptions and beliefs of individuals.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington disagreed…1yr1Y

Engaged Abortion

(1) By "correct our thoughts" I mean that, as individuals sometimes violate the principles of correct reasoning in favour of emotionalism, we need laws of logic in order to ensure we are reasoning correctly. If laws of logic were based upon what we as human beings think, then they could not be used as a tool to think or reason correctly. History demonstrates that it is the tendency of humanity to be irrational and emotional, so how could a system based upon irrational and emotional thoughts possibly be a determiner of correct reasoning and argumentation?

(2) I cannot but express dism… Read moreay that you believe morality is some subjective, relativistic convention contrived by man. That is literally the same logic Adolf Hitler's regime was built upon – Darwinian morality of survival of the fittest, perpetuation of the "favoured race" and extermination of those deemed unfit or unfavored. This twisted ideology has resulted in hundreds of millions of worldwide deaths and if that is not self-evidently wrong to you, then you have rejected all premises of decency and humanity for a cruel and depraved ideology of murder and destruction. I, however, believe that God decided what is right and wrong, thus creating basic moral laws like "do not murder" and "do not steal" that mankind used to universally agree upon, and that are ingrained in the consciences of all but a wretched few members of humanity.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

...as individuals sometimes violate the principles of correct reasoning in favour of emotionalism...

I would first like to point out that "emotion" is not the opposite of logic. That kind of "logic vs emotion" mentality is incredibly silly and often just leads people to ignorantly assume that their own emotional beliefs are somehow "not emotional" but simply based on "facts and logic" alone.

...we need laws of logic in order to ensure we are reasoning correctly...

Sure, in terms of what we consider a "good/sound argument", yes. Again, the laws… Read more of logic are still merely the most basic of baselines for establishing objectivity within an argument, but "reasoning correctly" is still an incredibly odd way to phrase this. There are many different ways to argue, and not all of them are "correct" (whatever that even means to you).Are you thinking of "correct reasoning" as like a formatting thing or something? What's an example of "correct" vs "incorrect" reasoning to you?

History demonstrates that it is the tendency of humanity to be irrational and emotional...

Based on what? "Irrational" according to whom? Again, what are you considering "irrational" vs "rational" here, and what does being rational even have to do with the laws of logic? If I spend money on something I enjoy, instead of saving that money...is that "irrational"? What is the argument there? What laws of logic does "being irrational" supposedly violate? It feels like you have taken this so far off the issue that we're not even referring to the same things anymore.

I cannot but express dismay that you believe morality is some subjective, relativistic convention contrived by man.

Because it is. Morality is literally nothing more than the personal belief system of what each and every individual personally believes is justified or not. What exactly is objective about that?

That is literally the same logic Adolf Hitler's regime was built upon – Darwinian morality of survival of the fittest, perpetuation of the "favoured race" and extermination of those deemed unfit or unfavored.

What you are describing is simply "social darwinism" and "eugenics", and is not even tangentially related to what we were talking about. I'm not even sure how you think this argument fits into this topic? Morality being subjective means that people have their own beliefs and justifications for whatever it is that they think "good" and "bad" are. Everything that you, or I, or Hitler, or anybody else believe to be "good" or "bad" is nothing more than our own personal opinions...that's what morality being subjective means. This isn't an "ideology", it's just how personal values work; some people will believe things are good that you think are bad, and some people will believe things are bad that you think are good. Neither of you are "right" or "wrong", you just believe different things, based on whatever sets of premises you believe in. Morals are just opinions.

This twisted ideology has resulted in hundreds of millions of worldwide deaths and if that is not self-evidently wrong to you, then you have rejected all premises of decency and humanity for a cruel and depraved ideology of murder and destruction.

Again, what "ideology" are you talking about? If you're referring to Naziism, then yes I believe that is morally wrong. If you're referring to genocide or eugenics or fascism, then yes I believe those things are morally wrong and unjust. There are a lot of things I believe are wrong and unjust that you probably think otherwise, and vice versa. As you pointed out, I believe that capitalism is morally wrong and unjust, yet you disagree, but those are both simply our own subjective opinions. There is no way to measure "wrongness" or "rightness" or "good" or "bad" because they AREN'T objective. They're opinions.

I, however, believe that God decided what is right and wrong...

And that's your own personal belief. Again, that's not objective. Your set of morals relies solely on your personal belief in the premises that 1) there is a god, 2) your god actually said what you think it did, 3) you should accept what your god says, etc. Anyone who doesn't also believe in your premises has absolutely no reason to accept your conclusions either. Everyone has some kind of basis for WHY they hold the moral conclusions they do, and yours personally is "god said so". Obviously, not everyone believes in your god, so YOUR premises are not accepted by everyone, therefore your conclusions can subsequently only be validated by the acceptance of your premises. You can make whatever logical arguments you want to make based on your premises, but because not everyone accepts your premises, they don't have to accept your morals either. Everyone can make a logical argument for their own morality, because we all have our own premises that we accept. Most importantly, just because you believe that your god says so, doesn't make any of that objective...that's still just YOUR belief.

...thus creating basic moral laws like "do not murder" and "do not steal" that mankind used to universally agree upon...

You understand that people can believe that murder or theft is wrong without believing in your god or its "moral laws", right? In fact, these common moral beliefs likely came from the fact that humans have always been incredibly social animals, even before we were humans, and our empathy and care for other members of our species/community is what led us to thrive and prosper. The very concept of morality evolved as a social advantage for our early communal ancestors to survive together.

Without objective morality, you have no basis upon which to enforce your worldview or utopian vision upon others, nor, I may add, any right.

That is what laws are for..? Did you not know that? Because morality is subjective, groups of people needed a way to decide which set of morals would and would not be allowed in society...aka laws. If everyone could just do whatever they personally thought was okay, then anything would be permissible, so we created laws and governmental power structures as a means of determining, and enforcing, which things we would allow and not allow in society. It is BECAUSE morality is subjective that we even needed to do this in the first place.

Personally, I argue that the best means of deciding these things is via democracy, in which every member of the group/society has an equal say in the decision-making, thus the outcome is the most likely to be favorable for the most people (this is an incredibly oversimplified explanation btw). We have laws against murder not because it is objective, but simply because the vast majority of people (or at least, decision-makers) accept that it shouldn't be allowed.

I asked you why we can trust inventions invented by humans using their senses when the senses themselves are not reliable...

Because they produce repeatable results...that's what empirical scientific data relies on. We trust them because they work, consistently, in every given situation. If they didn't, then the tool would obviously not be reliable. That is definitionally what it means for something to be reliable: we can rely on it to produce consistent and universal results for anyone. Your senses cannot provide that because your senses are exclusive to your own personal experience, and cannot be used consistently, or even at all, by others. This should not be complicated, unless you're trying to bring solipsism or something into this...

...you just begged the question...

What question do you think I'm begging here? Every time I correct one of your misunderstandings of a concept, you then turn around and claim that I am somehow the one committing the fallacy. If YOU are going to insist that logic, morality, etc. are somehow objective, then it is on YOU to provide the empirical evidence to prove an objective metric of measure. And I''l give you a preemptive tip just in case: "god said so" is not at all objective OR empirical.

...without once confronting the logic hurdle I presented to you in my prior comments.

You have not provided any "hurdles". All you have done so far is completely misunderstand what logic is and does, as well as what morality is and does, and then pose an argument based on your misunderstood assumption.

And if you believe that truths can only be objective when they observed by tools, with what tool have you observed this empiricist principle?

I don't even understand how to answer this without knowing what you think "truths" are, as I believe I've already asked you this once before, without getting an answer. Is "my name is VulcanMan6" a truth? Is "it is 35° outside" a truth? Is "murder is bad" a truth? Is "evolution is real" a truth? Heck, I'm sure that there are plenty of things that I would argue are "true" that you would disagree with, so how am I supposed to know what YOU are referring to as "a truth" here..? You argue as though nothing is subjective in the universe, which is blatantly untrue, and it ruins the basis for so many of your arguments like this. Subjective things don't have tools to measure them with, because they fundamentally cannot be objectively measured...that's part of what it means to BE subjective. Again, if YOU are the one arguing that these things are objective, then YOU must come forward with some kind of objective means to prove that.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…1yr1Y

Dear god what kind of crap’s going on?

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

lol this kid is arguing that morality is objective because god made it, as well as arguing that the laws of logic prove the existence of his god. Just the typical fundamental christian arguments...