khaled

I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and the...

I get that a lot I'll try to elaborate

I'm advocating that an objective morality is impossible

oh yeah ok. "Is killing Hitler as a baby wrong". There is room for disagreement here. "Does something exists". Yes. There is no room for disagreement ...

Morality: A self evident ought

what do you mean "demonstrate"

if murder was right there would be no logical inconsistency however if "I exist" was wrong there WOULD be a logical inconsistency.

because it is simply possible to disagree about whether or not murder is wrong but one cannot disagree about whether or not one exists for example (TH...

ok I think we're both really confused (at least I am) do you mind rebooting this conversation to when you were asking why it's impossible for murder t...

what's the yes for?

But that would go against the definition of an objective morality so I believe that at that point you should discard the concept altogether. Morality ...

I can promise you I wasn't trying to do that consciously I swear. I was using a rhetorical question. Are you seriously going to try to say that there ...

I just assumed you'd respond in the positive as there very clearly is room for disagreement (it was a rhetorical question)

are we both lost? Is it just me? What's happening right now?

Is there room for disagreement on the question "is it moral to kill Hitler"

Ok then you could respond now

to "Is there any room for disagreement on that question?" (The question is "is it moral to kill Hitler") If there IS room for disagreement then it is ...

on the other hand "Something exists" Is there any room for disagreement on that statement? No. My standard for morality is that high

if the answer is yes then it is not self evident and thus not objective

"Is it morally bad to kill Hitler?" Is there any room for disagreement on that question?

so say:

another way to say it is that it simply possible to disagree about whether or not murder is wrong but one cannot disagree about whether or not one exi...

murder can never become self evidently bad because it is not a logical contradiction for it to be good

ok I'm fine with stalling. Because what you consider to be morally good or bad is ultimately a subjective perception meaning that it can never be made...

I can't think of a way. Let's say it's impossible

oh you're asking how it might be objective that killing someone is wrong?

you might want to see the title of the discussion 4 down from this (the one that I started)

"something exists" seems pretty self evident to all observers

why

I don't think it IS self evident in the first place

objective = self evident to all observers

for it to be objective

it isn't

I meant that I need a moral premise that is self evident that no one can disagree with (just repeating). That's all. The no one does thing meant that ...

something that cannot be false/can verify itself. Ex: I am Conscious. There is no way for this to be false. I can't be having an "illusion" of conscio...

personally, self evidence. Morality has to be a premise no one can disagree with (Note: no one CAN disagree with not no one DOES) which is why I don't...

I got bambuzzled

ok replace "should" with "must be done in order to complete the task of:" and the formulation still makes sense. It's not deriving shoulds so much as ...

no I don't see how that works at all. So wouldn't this formulation be useless for finding moral truths then?

here is an example: I want to kill an innocent person(I don't). I ought to kill an innocent person In this case we can both agree that the ought is pr...

well if it's a tautology it doesn't matter which one I decide to use right? It's like using x=3 vs 2x=6 My point is that in both cases oughts are gett...

translates as is tautologically. The two sentences: "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." And "I should vaccinat...

No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my c...

no the should in Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake" My point is that the only thing this f...

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children. Translates to: I should vaccinate my children in order to prevent their suff...

no I still think it's a semantic shift. The "ought" you cannot obtain from an is is an objective moral ought such as "one ought not to kill" however t...

P1 is a definition. I already said if you don't like P2 use "There is a number of premises as large as the number of possible sensical statements whic...

I get the form now. I just don't understand why getting an ought from a want never occurred to anyone. I'ma do some thinking and research now if you d...

P1: A statement is a premise P2: Humans can conceive of an infinite number of statements C: Humans can conceive of an infinite number of premises Any ...