# "The Abolition of Man" discussion thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2007, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556 "2007-12-29T01:25:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/81 "2008-01-11T19:24:58Z")
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee] This seems to confirm something I began to suspect after reading this in you previous post: You don’t seem to have an actual argument except that maybe, somehow, in the vast strangeness of the universe, we could be wrong. Your disagreement doesn’t seem to be with our actual position (though you say it is) but with our sureness. Perhaps you think we’re arrogant to keep arguing as if we knew, with absolute certainty, that we’re right. [/quote] I do have an argument. It just seems that either i’m wrong and don’t understand your arguments back, or i’m right but I can’t put it well enough so it’s understandable. I would very much like to be able to exchange arguments, but we seem to be at an impasse. And I don’t think you’re arrogant. > [@](#): > > But here’s the thing: what we’re saying we’re right about is _what we mean_ by good. And yes, I am one hundred percent certain that _I know what I mean_. Nothing could change my mind about that. Even if I were, in the future, persuaded to use the word “good” to mean something else, I still would have been right that on January 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, when I used the word “good” I meant something subjective _and only something subjective._ > > And if something else is discovered in the universe (or in any other universe), that somehow gets labeled “objective good,” I’ll try to find another name because _that’s not what I mean by good!_ And even if, for the sake of everyone else, I agreed to call it “objective good” because they do, it would be an additional meaning of “good,” a homonym, not the kind of good we’ve been debating here. Ok. > [@](#): > > Please notice that I haven’t even insisted on using my definition of “good.” I’ve repeatedly asked you what you mean, and all you come back with is something to the effect of, “But it _could_ mean something else!” Fine. It could. If you want to use it to mean something else, go ahead. If you want to defend the right of beings in alternate universes to use the word how they want, go ahead. But I’m not wrong about how I use it! And the way I use it (and everyone else I know) specifically excludes something objective. I can’t give you another definition, because as i’ve said, I don’t believe it. My own definition is entirely subjective. I don’t believe there is an objective good. My argument has been that if there is such an objective good, we don’t currently understand it, so i’m not entirely sure how I can give any examples of something I don’t understand. The way I use it also excludes something objective. All I am arguing for is the possibility that we are wrong. That’s it. The chance that, perhaps, we don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/82 "2008-01-11T19:47:04Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Either i’m just incapable of understanding what you’re saying (which is quite possible) or i’m incapable of putting across what I mean well (which is also worryingly possible). So i’ll attempt to take the coward’s way out. Your reasoning, my reasoning, all of it is uncertain. It’s based on how we look out at the universe, and our ideas could be entirely wrong. What we think of as logic, in fact, could be wrong, just given the appearance of correctness by seemingly-connected randomness. It is possible that we understand nothing about the universe. In those terms, it is possible for an “objective good” to exist, just as it is possible the universe doesn’t in fact exist at all as we know it. I as an atheist don’t believe in any gods, and in fact I believe there are logical flaws in the existence of certain gods which mean they couldn’t exist. But I accept that what I consider logical, and indeed the whole system of logic at all, could be wrong, and that such gods do exist. I feel I need to point out again i’m only arguing for the possibility of an objective good. I don’t believe there is one either. [/QUOTE] Pardon me while I vent a little. My views on logic are _not_ :mad: based on how I look at the universe, any more than my views on counting are restricted to the number of physical objects available to me to count. Logic, math, language, morality; these are all abstract systems which _only_ interface with reality at two points: 1) real creatures like humans attempt devise and attempt to apply the rules of the abstract systems, and 2) we try to apply the abstract concepts to real situations, to aid us in coming to conclusions about the real situations within the conceptual framework of the abstract system. Point 1 is only interesting to note that errors can be introduced by physical quirks underlying the ‘thinking system’, such as if you’re brain damaged or running on a pentium chip or something. However, if one wants to get precise about it, these errors simply alter the rules of the abstract system you’re doing your thinking in into a similar but different abstract system, and don’t actually damage the original, “correct” system at all; it’s abstract and therefore impervious to interference from mere mortals or gods. So, assuming your use of the original system is correct and you stay in that system, then this point is not a problem at all. With point 2, there is generally a clear point where any confusion will arise from relating the system to the real world. With logic (especially formal logic), it’s the formulation of proper premises. With math, it’s correctly counting or measuring things so as to be able represent them with numerical values. With language, it’s making associations between things in the real objective world and their associated words in the language, like between an apple and “apple”. So I _deny_ that logic as a system could be wrong. Logic is abstract and thus works equally well _regardless_ of the condition of the world or even which universe you happen to be in! Such details only effect the points 1 and 2 mentioned above, neither of which is actually part of the logic! (And your statement that logic could be “just given the appearance of correctness by seemingly-connected randomness” makes me _seriously_ doubt that you have any understanding of how real logic actually works. As one who has given it a fair amount of study, I _assure_ you that it is definitely not random. (When done correctly, anyway. If done incorrectly, it’s not actually “logic”.)) Further, in this specific question of “good” and “objectivity”, the issue never _gets_ to the point of touching on point 2; it doesn’t get as far as the real world because it can be resolved abstractly within the abstract system of word definitions itself and can be decided without referencing real-world examples. So, assuming my analysis is correct (thus avoiding a point 1 problem), questions and uncertaintities about the universe we live in have _nothing to do with the problem at hand._ So I _reject_ your coward’s way out! 🆒 If you wish to cease discussing this feel free to do so, but you cannot hide behind the mysteries of the universe in this specific case. (Whereas you could if this was the more general question of whether a god exists, which is decidedly _not_ a purely abstract issue (despite claims to the contrary by modal ontological arguments)). As an atheistic agnostic, I too don’t believe that there is/are god(s). But I _know_ that there’s no such thing as a truly objective good. (By the definitions I use for those words, ie, within my system of language.) [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I can’t give you another definition, because as i’ve said, I don’t believe it. My own definition is entirely subjective. I don’t believe there is an objective good. My argument has been that if there is such an objective good, we don’t currently understand it, so i’m not entirely sure how I can give any examples of something I don’t understand. [/QUOTE] The thing is, it has nothing to do with what we don’t know. It has everything to do with what we _do_ know: the definitions we’re using for “objective” and “good” contradict one another, much like the definitions for the word “square” and “circle”. And, just like there is not and _cannot_ be a square circle, there is not and cannot be an objective good. There’s nothing wrong with a good proof by definition, after all. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/83 "2008-01-11T19:56:45Z")
If I understand your point, it’s this; 1 + 1 will always equal 2 (assuming the usual system of counting), because “1” and “2” are concepts defined by their relationship in this way. A case where 1 + 1 does not equal 2 (again within that system) is not possible, because 1s that do not add up to 2 would not be 1s. Logic, likewise. Likewise, good is a subjective measure because it is defined as a subjective measure. A good that was not subjective cannot be because any such good would not be “good” as we define it. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/84 "2008-01-11T21:27:49Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] If I understand your point, it’s this; 1 + 1 will always equal 2 (assuming the usual system of counting), because “1” and “2” are concepts defined by their relationship in this way. A case where 1 + 1 does not equal 2 (again within that system) is not possible, because 1s that do not add up to 2 would not be 1s. Logic, likewise. Likewise, good is a subjective measure because it is defined as a subjective measure. A good that was not subjective cannot be because any such good would not be “good” as we define it. Is that right? [/QUOTE] A little bit more precisely, a good is a subjective measure because it’s defined based on whichever preferences, values, and goals are in play, and those elements are themselves subjective, especially preferences. Prior to determining which set of subjective preferences, values, and goals, you have, the term “good” has no meaning at all, ergo the term can only be defined within a subjective framework, and not objectively. [aside] I am of the opinion that personal goals are devised and selected based on preferences and values, and personal values are devised or selected based on preferences, making them subjective as well, if not in the creation of them (they may be provided by an outside source like parents or a church) then in the decision of which external values/goals to adopt and with what intensity. [/aside] ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/85 "2008-01-12T03:53:33Z")
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee] If **RT** is trying to make an argument from Plato, he’s not explaining it very well. [/QUOTE] > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Oh, and no, I wasn’t trying to make an argument from Plato, although it may be the same argument. Sorry – I didn’t mean to imply that **Revenant Threshold** was/is a Platonist, nor that Plato’s theories are adequate. Rather, it just seemed to me that Plato might be related _enough_ to what **Revenant Threshold** was attempting to convey to provide a basis for progress, either through noting similarities or contrasts. Again, my apologies for the interruption… ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556/86 "2008-01-12T04:02:46Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] A little bit more precisely, a good is a subjective measure because it’s defined based on whichever preferences, values, and goals are in play, and those elements are themselves subjective, especially preferences. Prior to determining which set of subjective preferences, values, and goals, you have, the term “good” has no meaning at all, ergo the term can only be defined within a subjective framework, and not objectively. [aside] I am of the opinion that personal goals are devised and selected based on preferences and values, and personal values are devised or selected based on preferences, making them subjective as well, if not in the creation of them (they may be provided by an outside source like parents or a church) then in the decision of which external values/goals to adopt and with what intensity. [/aside] [/QUOTE] Fair enough then. And no worries, **DS**. Honestly I was just glad to have someone on my side. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-abolition-of-man-discussion-thread/431556.md?page=4)