The Existence of Objective Morality: A Debate - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14931405
The Existence of Objective Morality: A Debate

Introduction

This debate is primarily between @Potemkin and myself.

I challenged him here:

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=173760&start=280

when I said:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well then, that being the case, would you be willing to debate this in future?

I can hardly think of a person I would rather debate on the "other side" of the ideological spectrum.

A gentleman's duel done at a leisurely scotch-sipping pace.

I will argue that my moral-political system of theonomic anarcho-capitalism can be demonstrated as logical and rational from certain axioms and a few simple syllogisms [and therefore that it ought to be believed as universal and objective]

We can discuss terms and definitions at a later date (I think a similar format to the one I am doing with Saeko will suffice).

What says you old chap?

Do you accept the challenge?


and he accepted the challenge to debate when he said this;

Potemkin wrote:I accept your kind invitation.


I shall now give my proposed terms and definitions:

I would ask that other posters refrain from interrupting the debate with their own comment until Potemkin and I have finished our posts.

This debate has as its main focus, the demonstration of an objective morality from plain reason.

The particular form of objective morality herein debated will likewise be the one that I shall defend, which is that of a theonomic anarcho-capitalism.

I. The Terms of The Debate.

Given the nature of disputation in determining an aforementioned criteria for victory, I as the challenger have made the claim that I can establish my particular position from plain reason as both logical and rational. My opponent has accepted that if my moral imperatives (obligation) were to be demonstrated as logical and rational that he would be compelled to accept those conclusions as objective and universal in their scope of application (moral authority).

Thus, I (the challenger) will attempt to demonstrate that theonomic anarcho-capitalism can be proven from plain reasoning given certain qualifications below, ultimately though, I am attempting to demonstrate the actual goal of debate (proof of an objective morality) which is broad, by demonstrating that my specific moral position (theonomic anarcho-capitalism) meets the same criteria (demonstrable from plain reason).

Here then are the terms:

1. I shall demonstrate that the cardinal tenants of anarcho-capitalism; namely, original appropriation, private property, and the non-aggression principle can all be established from plain reason.

2. I shall demonstrate that these principles as established, via a compounding case, preclude, as irrational, the existence of any state as a third-party monopolist of coercion and especially any government that would presume the public ownership of any land in a nation (including all social-contracts and/or socialist states).

3. I shall demonstrate that all intentionally non-procreative sexuality is not only the logical equivalent of actual person destroying, but that such actions, via a compounding case, are murder via a violation of the non-aggression principle.

4. I shall in turn demonstrate that such a morality, because of certain specifics, most closely approximates the theonomic position of classical Christianity over-and-against the alternative divine-command schools of either Judaism or Islam.

5. The laws of reason and discourse will be the governing principles of the debate. If we notice fallacies in the others reasoning they must be identified by name and why the fallacy obtains must be briefly explained. These can be rebutted, of course (but we shouldn't let this sort of thing bog us down).

6. Questions asked by each side shall be answered as succinctly as possible in the responding post. Every question asked should not warrant 18 paragraph answers, likewise we should ask questions with the intention of getting simple responses unless we specifically ask the other debater to explain themselves or to expand on their point.

7. Questions that we intend to have answered by the other poster (that are not intended as rhetorical) shall be numbered, even if they are the only questions asked in the post. This will prevent confusion and the ever-annoying forum demand "answer my question please."

If the questions we want answered are always numbered, with the response identified numerically as well, we shall keep that portion organized.

8. We will allow a couple of posts for general housekeeping and definitions before we start "counting our posts." NOTE: I reserve the right as the one presenting my position to give my own definitions (a common rule in disputation); however, I will modify these definitions if they radically depart from common understanding as they are definitions that both sides will need to use in the course of the debate.

9. I suggest 8 full posts each to be the limit for the debate. We will first do some unofficial posting to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions and when you are comfortable I will make my first main post of eight and then we will go-back-and-forth until the debate has concluded.

10. we should try to "get to" each other’s post within a week of it being made. Worst case this means the debate could go 16 plus weeks. Hopefully we can keep that from happening, but whatever. If we can't post for an extended period for any reason, we should declare it in the thread (vacations, etc.).

II. Definitions:

Objective Morality- A system of obligation which is universal in applicable scope regarding human society and is rationally justified on likewise universally-applicable grounds.

Subjective Morality- a moral belief that is not regarded as having any force of obligation beyond oneself and is likewise not regarded as rationally justified beyond one’s own personal conviction and preference.

Inter-Subjective Morality- A system of obligation based upon community consensus, the power to compel originating solely in this community consent, and not being justified rationally beyond the individual convictions or preferences of the actors that make up the whole.

The Social Contract- the theoretical ownership of government by the consent of the governed, regardless of the form in which that government may take (e.g. republics, dictatorships, etc).

Capitalism- the private ownership of the means of production, the private control of the market, and the private retaining of property in general.

Government/State: A third-party monopolist of compulsion or coercion mainly through the means of the enforcement of law by violent-force and of defense by means of violent force, the funding of which is done by the compelled collection of funds by primary parties, often called taxes.

Potential Persons- an entity which is not currently an actual person but which is capable of developing into an actual person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions.

Actual Persons- Those regarded as living human beings in the colloquial sense.

The Non-Aggression Principle- The affirmation that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. the non-aggression principle does not forbid forceful defense or retaliation, nor does it preclude the interpersonal enforcement of contracts within the context of covenants made under the principle of voluntarism.

Theonomy- The affirmation, application, and enforcement of moral laws according to the general pattern and form of the deutero-levitical peneology, atleast in regards to a hierarchy of severity.

Secular- denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

Original Appropriation- the process by which previously unowned natural resources, particularly land, become the property of a person or group of persons.

Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.

The Universal Sex Ratio: The phenomenon of natural human societies yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 male-to-female births.


III. Conclusion

I now await my opponent to discuss or agree to the definitions and terms given.
#14931555
Here's an idea! Instead of going round in a dialectical circle, abstracting arguments, perhaps you can put your minds together and tackle a real problem. Maybe you can collaborate and figure out how to feed the hungry. God forbid you use your intellect to solve a real problem.

Objective Morality exists. This isn't a debate. Get real. We're fragments of a whole. Potential unfolds through individuals. If you really wish to explore morality, I recommend studying a rudimentary explanation of white and black magic. Attention and intention aligned solely with yourself (black) vs attention and intention aligned with the whole of the species (white). You make this choice everyday. After-all, black is merely the absent of light.

Your kind of pretentious and academic gibberish will not help mankind evolve. It doesn't matter how many old or contemporary thought programs/patterns you can piece together, you're using a language you didn't create, therefore you're not an individual-- therefore your argument is derivative-- therefore you're a fragment of a whole. Good day, forum image.



I now await my ancestor
I fixed it for you. Forum image ABCDEFG is not your opponent, forum image ABCDEFG is your ancestor. Sure, you can debate and eventually obtain the same "progress" collaboration produces, but it's a slow and round-about way to the same result. In the end, this isn't a debate, this is the universe recycling you to create a permutation of itself.

Given the nature of disputation in determining an aforementioned criteria for victory, I as the challenger have made the claim that I can establish my particular position from plain reason as both logical and rational. My opponent has accepted that if my moral imperatives (obligation) were to be demonstrated as logical and rational that he would be compelled to accept those conclusions as objective and universal in their scope of application (moral authority).

Potential Persons- an entity which is not currently an actual person but which is capable of developing into an actual person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions.

Actual Persons- Those regarded as living human beings in the colloquial sense.
WTF are you talking about? Your so-called argument sounds psychopathic. The world will carry on without this nonsense, because the universe is bigger than this silly thread.

As a rule, all we need to know is- If you knowingly hurt or murder an individual, you collectively harm or limit the whole. That's objective morality.

Thank you for your time & attention,

-RT
#14931602
Rhetoric Thug wrote:As a rule, all we need to know is- If you knowingly hurt or murder an individual, you collectively harm or limit the whole. That's objective morality.

What if the individual you hurt or murder was Adolf Hitler in 1939, or a serial killer stalking his next victim, or Justin Bieber plotting to release his next album? Wouldn't killing such individuals help rather than harm and expand rather than limit the whole? Hmm? :eh:
#14931612
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The Universal Sex Ratio: The phenomenon of natural human societies yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 male-to-female births.

Wrong!

In the human species the ratio between males and females at birth is slightly biased towards the male sex. The natural “sex ratio at birth” is often considered to be around 105. This means that at birth on average, there are 105 males for every 100 females.


:lol:
#14931674
RhetoricThug wrote:As a rule, all we need to know is- If you knowingly hurt or murder an individual, you collectively harm or limit the whole. That's objective morality

No … That's "statistical morality"

Objective Morality is a consensual thing, removing certain individuals may actually strengthen the consensus.

Zam ;)
#14931719
Calling me an idiot is a violation of forum rule two. :roll:
Potemkin wrote:What if the individual you hurt or murder was Adolf Hitler in 1939, or a serial killer stalking his next victim, or Justin Bieber plotting to release his next album? Wouldn't killing such individuals help rather than harm and expand rather than limit the whole? Hmm? :eh:
Your last example is a juvenile attempt at tongue & cheek humor (like that kill a hippie meme you posted in a different thread. I'm not sure why your thought process appears to be so bitter and violent). As for Hitler and the serial killer examples, a society's legal system should process such individuals for their immoral acts against society. A legal institution is a physical manifestation of objective morality. Not that I should have to explain the nuance, but here it is in a MLK quote: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Morality serves as the ethical basis or justification for law and facilitates obedience to the law by fomenting habits of conduct. Law is driven by consensus and the interpretation of social contracts. Morality precedes law. Moral statistics constitute field data that become useful research tools for a society that is trying to create an objective body of rules and regulations.

-RT
#14931726
@Potemkin,

Good sir,

whenever you are satisfied feeding the trolls and the faux logicians who seek to prejudge debates (please take your time)

I am ready to post once we have agreed on terms/definition. Please ask questions/critique where needed so we can form an acceptable consensus if none yet exists with what I posted, Otherwise.....

I am ready whenever you are.

*Pours Glass of Scotch......Lights Pipe*

Let me know.

- VS
#14931735
RhetoricThug wrote:Moral statistics constitute field data that become useful research tools

First the neo-barb buffoonery, then this !
>>> :lol: - :lol: - :lol: <<<

Zam
#14931737
Zamuel wrote:No … That's "statistical morality"

Objective Morality is a consensual thing...


Indeed it is Zam. So what do you think? Can objective Morality ever exist when you have conflicting opinions in society? Abortion is definitely subjective morality right? And then there is the Freedom fighter terrorist argument. But is there anything that we can categorise as moral that everyone - including Muslims, Americans, Feminists, the Trumpists or Libertarians could ever be consensual over? I'm stumped. So I go with it doesn't exist. What do you think? Interested to know.

Might as well get this thread running I guess.
#14931743
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Here then are the terms:

1. I shall demonstrate that the cardinal tenants of anarcho-capitalism; namely, original appropriation, private property, and the non-aggression principle can all be established from plain reason.

I presume you mean "tenets" rather than "tenants". And by "plain reason", do you mean what Thomas Paine called "common-sense", or do you mean rigorous logical deduction?

4. I shall in turn demonstrate that such a morality, because of certain specifics, most closely approximates the theonomic position of classical Christianity over-and-against the alternative divine-command schools of either Judaism or Islam.

By "theonomic", I presume you mean that the fact that the moral imperatives are divine commands is insufficient for their objectivity and universality - they must also be in accordance with reason and logic? To Judaism or Islam, the fact that Yahweh or Allah have commanded a moral imperative is sufficient in and of itself for that moral imperative to be objective and universally binding. Am I correct in presuming that you seek to go farther than this, and demonstrate that such moral imperatives can also be logically deduced from certain axioms?

8. We will allow a couple of posts for general housekeeping and definitions before we start "counting our posts." NOTE: I reserve the right as the one presenting my position to give my own definitions (a common rule in disputation); however, I will modify these definitions if they radically depart from common understanding as they are definitions that both sides will need to use in the course of the debate.

9. I suggest 8 full posts each to be the limit for the debate. We will first do some unofficial posting to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions and when you are comfortable I will make my first main post of eight and then we will go-back-and-forth until the debate has concluded.

I suspect that most of the substantive debate will occur during the "housekeeping" phase. Lol. After all, once the axioms and definitions are in place, I don't doubt that you could logically deduce the conclusions you wish me to accept. The real debate should therefore be over said axioms and definitions.

The Non-Aggression Principle- The affirmation that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. the non-aggression principle does not forbid forceful defense or retaliation, nor does it preclude the interpersonal enforcement of contracts within the context of covenants made under the principle of voluntarism.

I have no problem with most of your definitions, with the exception of this one, the NAP. In my opinion, it begs too many questions - what is "aggression"?, what is "property"?, how is said "property" acquired?, why should all parties accept the validity of the NAP, even those who own no "property" except their own bodies? And so on and so forth. By no means do I accept the validity of the NAP. As you would expect. Lol.

Original Appropriation- the process by which previously unowned natural resources, particularly land, become the property of a person or group of persons.

Likewise, I wish to unpack this definition. By precisely which process does "original appropriation" occur? Historically speaking, almost all original appropriation has occurred through physical force; i.e., what most people would nowadays regard as 'theft'. As Proudhon asserted, all property (in its original form, at least) is theft.

The Universal Sex Ratio: The phenomenon of natural human societies yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 male-to-female births.

As has been pointed out, this ratio is not precisely 1:1. Even more important, though, is the question of what ratio of males to females survive (or are allowed to survive) to reproductive age. After all, in more 'natural' human societies than ours (e.g., in ancient Greek city-states or ancient China), female infanticide was widely practiced. In this sense, it is not a "universal" sex ratio at all, but varies with historical period or geographical location.

Looking forward to your reply.
#14931744
B0ycey wrote:Indeed it is Zam. So what do you think? Can objective Morality ever exist when you have conflicting opinions in society? Abortion is definitely subjective morality right? And then there is the Freedom fighter terrorist argument. But is there anything that we can categorise as moral that everyone - including Muslims, Americans, Feminists, the Trumpists or Libertarians could ever be consensual over? I'm stumped. So I go with it doesn't exist. What do you think? Interested to know.

Might as well get this thread running I guess.


Let me begin by noting that "morality" has a very weak consensus these days in the western world and it is slowly dying out. The "conflicting opinions" you mention serve as evidence. In contrast I find that Islam, Confucianist, Buddhist, and other non Christian moralities remain strong and unthreatened.

In the west I think new morals require the emergence of new leadership and a new dynamic. Classical Capitalism has exhausted itself and is sinking into the old aristocratic pattern. It's morality is no longer unified and serves only to camouflage greed. There are glimmerings of new, healthy, morals arising focused on environmental maintenance, transparency, entitlement, and diversity, but they require leadership that can establish stability and opportunity for their development from ideals into dynamics, that will redefine western civilization.

Could such leadership arise from the ashes of Trump?

Zam 8)
#14931749
Zamuel wrote:Let me begin by noting that "morality" has a very weak consensus these days in the western world and it is slowly dying out. The "conflicting opinions" you mention serve as evidence. In contrast I find that Islam, Confucianist, Buddhist, and other non Christian moralities remain strong and unthreatened.

In the west I think new morals require the emergence of new leadership and a new dynamic. Classical Capitalism has exhausted itself and is sinking into the old aristocratic pattern. It's morality is no longer unified and serves only to camouflage greed. There are glimmerings of new, healthy, morals arising focused on environmental maintenance, transparency, entitlement, and diversity, but they require leadership that can establish stability and opportunity for their development from ideals into dynamics, that will redefine western civilization.

Could such leadership arise from the ashes of Trump?

Zam 8)


I agree. I think morality is deemed by personal ethics than rules adhered by a social contract. After all, most people will accept that murder is morally wrong. But then where does warfare come into this? Stealing is wrong unless it is for need as well. Under the law of nature of Anarcho-Capitalism there are no rules but subjective morals still come into play and people won't become drones of yesmen. Any disagreement is settled by conflict so cannot remain fixed - as that is a conflict in morals by the act taking place actually.

Which brings me onto Trump. Trump a decisive figure. To his supporters he is morally perfect. Hindsight used to refer him as 'Trump of God". But his opponents consider him to be sinister. So what is he? Morally right or wrong? Well that is subjective. And that same logic can be applied by any laws within a social contract. There will always be someone who will disagree with any law (even a strongly supported one) on moral grounds.
#14931753
Potemkin wrote:I presume you mean "tenets" rather than "tenants".


Correct, thank you.

Potemkin wrote:And by "plain reason", do you mean what Thomas Paine called "common-sense", or do you mean rigorous logical deduction?


Logical deduction, the degree of rigor is up to you.

Potemkin wrote:By "theonomic", I presume you mean that the fact that the moral imperatives are divine commands is insufficient for their objectivity and universality - they must also be in accordance with reason and logic? To Judaism or Islam, the fact that Yahweh or Allah have commanded a moral imperative is sufficient in and of itself for that moral imperative to be objective and universally binding. Am I correct in presuming that you seek to go farther than this, and demonstrate that such moral imperatives can also be logically deduced from certain axioms?


I am only trying to demonstrate the same corpus of imperatives via a different route, with a particular point of differentiation deduced from reason making the corpus-proven (the variant of theonomy I am proposing) to be shown as aligned more with a particular school (in this case, Christianity over-and-against Islam and Judaism).

Potemkin wrote:I suspect that most of the substantive debate will occur during the "housekeeping" phase. Lol. After all, once the axioms and definitions are in place, I don't doubt that you could logically deduce the conclusions you wish me to accept. The real debate should therefore be over said axioms and definitions.


I of course differentiate between definitions and axioms, I view the axioms I will be using as part of the case (i.e., they are the first principles of the overall argument); you are free to contend them as not satisfying what they are claimed to be, or show that my inferences from them are invalid (once I present them of course); however, I am definitely willing to change the definitions as I presented in the OP if you feel they need to be modified without "counting our posts." That being said, 8 posts each is almost too long in all honesty and leaves plenty of time to interact with my axioms and inferences, so I reserve their presentation for my first post.

Potemkin wrote:I have no problem with most of your definitions, with the exception of this one, the NAP. In my opinion, it begs too many questions - what is "aggression"?, what is "property"?, how is said "property" acquired?, why should all parties accept the validity of the NAP, even those who own no "property" except their own bodies? And so on and so forth. By no means do I accept the validity of the NAP. As you would expect. Lol.


Well, I do not expect you to accept the validity of the position, only that it is an accurate definition of the term/position presented. For instance, lets say we were debating "communism" and you gave a definition of that term, as long as the definition is accurate it doesn't matter if I agree with the position defined.

In the definitions section, I only ask if you agree to the definition of NAP given. If not, I am open to your suggestions for a better definition. Feel free to give me a modified definition that you think is more precise/less ambiguous.

Potemkin wrote:Likewise, I wish to unpack this definition. By precisely which process does "original appropriation" occur? Historically speaking, almost all original appropriation has occurred through physical force; i.e., what most people would nowadays regard as 'theft'. As Proudhon asserted, all property (in its original form, at least) is theft.


My response to this is the same as above, whether original appropriation is merely a fantastic claim or logically problematic should be reserved for the main posts of the debate. For instance, if you were to define "Fascism" (which neither of us ascribe to) and in presenting the definition I objected to it with "Well is fascism even tenable?" that would not be a valid response as we aren't debating fascism yet, we are only discussing the definition of fascism. Which is different.

Since I am sure you are aware of Locke's doctrine of original appropriation (which I undoubtedly believe you oppose), I just want to know if my definition accurately represents Locke's doctrine. If not, please tell me how you think it could be improved.

I just want to reach a definitional agreement irrespective of whether you actually believe in original appropriation.

Potemkin wrote:As has been pointed out, this ratio is not precisely 1:1. Even more important, though, is the question of what ratio of males to females survive (or are allowed to survive) to reproductive age. After all, in more 'natural' human societies than ours (e.g., in ancient Greek city-states or ancient China), female infanticide was widely practiced. In this sense, it is not a "universal" sex ratio at all, but varies with historical period or geographical location.


Of course, my definition never claimed that the sex ratio was precisely 1:1, but generally 1:1 in natural human societies (what is also called Fisher's Law).

Infanticide would be an "unnatural factor" as it is a willful attempt to alter what would otherwise occur naturally, and typically does regarding the sex ratio. Thus, the event of Infanticide does not actually contradict the definition, as the definition only claims that given a natural course of human events, controlling for extraneous factors, human populations would naturally exhibit a general ratio of 1:1 male-to-female (a law which is not true for, lets say, honey bees).

Thus, what is claimed in this definition was only what the content of the definition stated (which is why I still think this one is sufficient, I was particularly careful with my wording).

So, to clarify (note in bold):

The phenomena of natural human societies (occurring naturally by natural human reproductive processes), yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 (once again, generally yielding, all-things-being-equal).

Thus, I am open to suggestions of the first two definitions you examined if you feel they can be worded better, but I do think the wording in the last definition was perfectly fine.

Thanks,
-VS
#14931760
Victoribus Spolia  wrote:... yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1

But your problem is it does not, notwithstanding your caveats.

yielding a general sex ratio of 1:1 male-to-female births.

The human sex ratio at birth is non-Fisherian.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 10 Jul 2018 22:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14931811
The world has produced millions of these Victoribus Spolia & Potemkin personalities. They all think and truly believe that they possess knowledge. And that's the problem. One man will never have all the knowledge (and individuals intuitively know this and that is why they seek more knowledge ;) ). We're designed to live through one another. Each man has a little piece of the primordial PIE.

For tribal man, competition drives evolution
For cosmic man, collaboration drives evolution

B0ycey wrote:Can objective Morality ever exist when you have conflicting opinions in society?
Yes, it's called law & order, and it's structured by chaos. Do you wish to live in a chaotic society or an ordered society? The legal system is a form of objective morality driven by a cultural interpretation of right & wrong (what's lawful and what's chaotic).

Humankind is in the process of unifying its mind and cultural interpretations through the technological extension of consciousness (we're doing it right now). We've been doing this for centuries, byway of images, writing, etc. The reason why you think objective morality doesn't exist- we're still fragmented in the noosphere. The technology is trying to communicate to our conscious awareness something that already exists... We're fundamentally unified, and artificially divided (taking the pigeonholes of language into consideration).
But is there anything that we can categorise as moral that everyone - including Muslims, Americans, Feminists, the Trumpists or Libertarians could ever be consensual over?
Underneath all the imaginary and fragmentary labels, abstractions, and propaganda... There is a human being. It's moral to live, laugh, and love. However, it's moral to die, cry, and hate too. Human nature wouldn't know how to live, laugh, and love, if it didn't know how to die, cry, and hate. The collaboration is taking place, but we call it debate.

All forms of academic snobbery will not help mankind evolve. It's a waste of intellect. A hobby for idea compost-kin that have nothing better to do than regurgitate second-hand thoughts and figure out ways to convince their minds that what they're doing is in-fact meaningful. I suppose you're wondering, what is a second-hand thought? Well, if a regurgitator of knowledge has not experienced the knowledge they're sharing, it is true then that they're potentially facilitating knowledge they themselves do not understand. Most discussions taking place on internet forums tend to involve second-hand thoughts. Hence why you have so many people linking articles, or wiki-quickies. :lol: Some "thinkers" allow second-hand thought to run their thoughts. Rightfully so, sum may suggest. For the ignorant masses need pied pipers. But this is not the case for everyone, and if one wishes to impose their experiences as authoritative pieces of knowledge, one has the right to do so. Epistemology will always be an ongoing consensus based investigation. Furthermore, it's historically accurate to claim that consensus based knowledge is not always accurate. So what's a debate worth, if the participants are merely painting thoughts with the varying colors of second-hand knowledge? Alas, the intellectual's pallet will always be filled with preconceived notions or colors if you will, but an honest painter will fill the canvass with unadulterated existence.

We're one mind (We're I), we all come from the same source (be it scientific, spiritual, or both). That's where we must start. No more debate, it's time to collaborate. We built this world separate, imagine what we can accomplish together. :)
#14931854
RhetoricThug wrote:Yes, it's called law & order, and it's structured by chaos. Do you wish to live in a chaotic society or an ordered society? The legal system is a form of objective morality driven by a cultural interpretation of right & wrong (what's lawful and what's chaotic).


So are you saying that law and order are agreed principles of what is right and wrong so cannot be subjective? Or is law and order codes of conduct so society can function without breaking down into anarchy? There is a distinction actually. For example does every single person in society actually believe the law is morally right to begin with? Obviously there is abortions laws that are divisive. But so is every other law in certain contexts. There are protests outside parliament for a reason after all.
#14931858
B0ycey wrote:So are you saying that law and order are agreed principles of what is right and wrong so cannot be subjective? Or is law and order codes of conduct so society can function without breaking down into anarchy? There is a distinction actually. For example does every single person in society actually believe the law is morally right to begin with? Obviously there is abortions laws that are divisive. But so is every other law in certain contexts. There are protests outside parliament for a reason after all.
Why do you want the forum image "RhetroicThug" to give you answers? Why are you unable to make a decision? Is it because we're ONE MIND? Would you know what to think if other humans stopped telling you what to think? I'm not going to answer your questions, B0ycey. Let's see what happens.

...

In a parallel reality, the forum image, er, I-Mage, "RhetoricThug" wrote:
So are you saying that law and order are agreed principles of what is right and wrong so cannot be subjective?
Yes.

Or is law and order codes of conduct so society can function without breaking down into anarchy?
Yes.

For example does every single person in society actually believe the law is morally right to begin with?
No.

Obviously there is abortions laws that are divisive.
Without abortion, there would be no law. With or without the law there would be abortion. So what is divisive, abortion or the law?

But so is every other law in certain contexts. There are protests outside parliament for a reason after all.
Progress is a contextual process. Social objectivity begins as subjectivity. A compressed concept in motion captured for action. Let's see how long or how far progress progresses. Love ya, B0ycey.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

When did I post about how the rest of the nazis a[…]

Hindsite, Lol. At least you are reading about so[…]

Most sheep-like nations?

The most sheep-like nations are socially collectiv[…]

Social media made people more competitive, fast pa[…]