Ce sujet est fermé
Pfft. Kharma. Plenty of immoral people have died happily of old age.Yojimboo wrote...
It's simple karma, you do bad things, so don't wonder if bad things happen to you.
Or "what goes around, comes around"
LucidStrike wrote...
I'll try an analogy. My value of your life is my own. It doesn't inherently exist. It might be described as subjective. However, if I say to you that "If you want to continue to live, you must eat," is that subjective? It's an observation of the experienced reality. If you do not nourish your body, you will die.
The contention here may be semantic.
Your life has value, because someone values it. What cannot be proven and I suppose to be false is that the universe values it, that it has inherent value.adam_grif wrote...
LucidStrike wrote...
I'll try an analogy. My value of your life is my own. It doesn't inherently exist. It might be described as subjective. However, if I say to you that "If you want to continue to live, you must eat," is that subjective? It's an observation of the experienced reality. If you do not nourish your body, you will die.
The contention here may be semantic.
I don't really follow here. Your value of my life does exist objectively (at the very least as memes in your brain), but it is not objectively true. The statement "your life has value" cannot be shown to be true under any circumstances.
Me needing to nourish my body is a statement of what is. I don't see how that supports your argument though. Morality and ethics is all about what ought to be, what should be. This comes back to the is/ought problem.
4 years and henceforth.Collider wrote...
Let's see. Are you vegan as well?
Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:40 .
What inherent value has the life around us or the planet it lives on, the star it is nearest, the galaxy it exists in, the universe? No more than we do, and we have none. If there were no intelligent being to value them or us, there would be no value. Therefore, the valuye is not inherent but conditional.Arrtis wrote...
All life does have inherent value as we do not exist for no purpose as living things we can help the life around us with our corpses even after death.Us living longer mean we may convert foods some animals cannot eat into something they can eat.Or grow in size to provide more in our deaths.Our life does have value its just not as high as we would like it to be.
Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:49 .
What? See, this is what I'm talking about, I'm not feigning ignorance, it's just hard to understand sometimes. I haven't studied philosophy formally, so I don't know all the expressions and whatnot. I'm simply working off my own sense of logic when arguing these things, using some terms I've picked up here and there. On the other hand, you seem to have studied these things for a bit, so I'm just saying, it's not always that easy for me to understand everything, especially when it's all in english, which isn't my native tongue.LucidStrike wrote...
Neither flatter me nor feign incompetence. You're perfectly capable or understanding.
Axiomatic means based on axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.
As I said to someone, I think many of these arguments are semantic. I think I am using different understandings of "objective".
Syllogism:
1. All people with red hair are angry.
2. Jordan is a person with red hair.
3. Jordan is angry.
Does 3 count as subjective or objective?
It didn't help when you compared moral principles to color preferences or whatever.
But thanks for explaining axioms for me, I haven't really bothered to find out its true meaning before now.
), then I suppose 3 would also be objective. How does this relate to the original argument though? 
Retour en haut