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.
Ok.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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]
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.
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)).
