To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[Adrift]

[seer mode]
So you agree that seer's arguments are frustratingly misrepresentative, like a cockroach that scuttles away from the light?
[/seer mode]

See, I've never seen him actually misrepresent people like that. Sometimes he'll follow his debatee's view point to what he believes is it's logical conclusion, and that'll frustrate people and having them believing that he's misrepresenting them, but I don't know if I consider that misrepresentation in the sense you're using it here.

[Adrift]

I have long found the term "skeptics" an interesting one. I actually don't see myself as "skeptical." I have a set of beliefs that includes some elements and excludes others, as with any human being. Ultimately, we are all skeptical of the things that are not in our belief system, so we can all be described as "skeptics."

But I agree that Seer is tenacious, and generally engages respectfully in the exchange - staying on the argument at hand instead of taking swipes at the person making them.

I'm using the word "skeptic" here in it's general usage to refer to those who are skeptical, particularly, of religious claims. It's easier to say "skeptic" than to indicate "atheists", "agnostics", "non-Christians religious believers", and perhaps even "liberal Christians". I would love to use the word "skeptic", and "freethinker" of myself, since I think of myself as generally skeptical and freethinking, maybe more so than most people I know, including those who use those labels for themselves, but unfortunately that would just become confusing to people who use those terms in their more colloquial sense.

[carpedm9587]

Except in math, like 12=12 it can not be any other way. Some one who commits suicide has decided that existence is not a desirable state (which was the case with a good friend of mine recently). So unlike the rules of logic for instance where there can't be an actual contrary position there can be with the question of existence. Whether you find your existence desirable or not is subjective. Agreed?

Seer - a person who is mentally compromised may also reject 12=12 as true. Their rejection does not alter the a priori truth of the statement. Likewise, depression may alter the perception of the "good of existence" - that does not change the a priori nature of it. This is not about how I "feel" about something. It is about the intrinsic "good" of existence. You will find it a foundational principle in Thomistic and Aristotelian thought.

Right and that is my point - your existence is a good to you. You decide your existence is a good, because you decide. But why is it good to you? Any argument you use will beg the question. Your a priori truth does nothing to inform this question. You would come to the same conclusion whether you held to this a priori truth or not. Like I said, it has no real currency in the discussion.

No - it is not a good "to me." Within the context of myself, my existence is a good. My existence is not necessarily a good for anyone else - but for a given thing, it's own existence is a good. It is not about how I "feel" about it (that, I suspect, would get us to emotivism). The a priori nature of it is rooted in the existence itself. Again - consider your own existence and ask yourself how the fact of your existence compares with the possibility of your non-existence. "To be," for a given thing, is a good for that thing. We can make a parallel observation for "happiness."

If you do not recognize this, Seer, I can do nothing further. You are arguing against an a priori truth, and there is nowhere else to go. From my perspective, you are willing to reject a foundational principle to preserve your line of reasoning. I would consider that irrational. I cannot prove the mathematical law of identity. I cannot prove the goodness of being within the context of itself. To reject the former you blow up mathematics. To reject the latter requires to to abandon pretty much all Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophical disciplines. You're tossing out the baby to rid yourself of the bath water, IMO.

Let's focus on these two questions for now...

Not quite sure where we go from here. If you are willing to reject the goodness of existence, and introduce the possibility that the existence of a thing is NOT a good, or that the non-existence of a thing can be a good for that thing (which is completely irrational), I have to conclude that you are arguing irrationally. I don't mean that pejoratively - I'm sure you are not doing so intentionally. But you just cannot rationally reject an a priori truth. If someone rejects 12=12, I have to conclude there is something amiss with their reasoning faculties. If someone rejects the goodness of their own existence, I am forced to come to the same conclusion. I frankly do not see a path forward, and we will probably have to simply agree to disagree. You will see my moral framework as "irrational" and "circular," and I will not. I do not see that changing.

[carpedm9587]

I'm using the word "skeptic" here in it's general usage to refer to those who are skeptical, particularly, of religious claims. It's easier to say "skeptic" than to indicate "atheists", "agnostics", "non-Christians religious believers", and perhaps even "liberal Christians". I would love to use the word "skeptic", and "freethinker" of myself, since I think of myself as generally skeptical and freethinking, maybe more so than most people I know, including those who use those labels for themselves, but unfortunately that would just become confusing to people who use those terms in their more colloquial sense.

Yeah - I know - and I understand. It is basically shorthand for "skeptical of my views," or "skeptical of 'true' Christianity" (in this context). I just tend to challenge words that get repeated without a lot of thought. Sometimes it can help "shift the apples in the bin" a tad, for myself as well as others.

[seer]

See, I've never seen him actually misrepresent people like that. Sometimes he'll follow his debatee's view point to what he believes is it's logical conclusion, and that'll frustrate people and having them believing that he's misrepresenting them, but I don't know if I consider that misrepresentation in the sense you're using it here.

How gratifying, someone gets me...

[seer]

Seer - a person who is mentally compromised may also reject 12=12 as true. Their rejection does not alter the a priori truth of the statement. Likewise, depression may alter the perception of the "good of existence" - that does not change the a priori nature of it. This is not about how I "feel" about something. It is about the intrinsic "good" of existence. You will find it a foundational principle in Thomistic and Aristotelian thought.

But 12=12 can not be any other way, whether you find your existence desirable or not can be different, whether you come to that conclusion under distress or not. It is not a necessary truth, like the law of noncontradiction, for instance. Let me put it this way, the law of contradiction would be true even if no minds were there to discover it. The sun could not both exist and not exist at the same moment. If there were no minds (existence) your a priori truth would not exist, it is based on experience - it is not a necessary truth like the law of noncontradiction, it would be a posteriori knowledge.

No - it is not a good "to me." Within the context of myself, my existence is a good. My existence is not necessarily a good for anyone else - but for a given thing, it's own existence is a good. It is not about how I "feel" about it (that, I suspect, would get us to emotivism). The a priori nature of it is rooted in the existence itself. Again - consider your own existence and ask yourself how the fact of your existence compares with the possibility of your non-existence. "To be," for a given thing, is a good for that thing.

But it is ONLY the content of my experience that informs me that my existence is a good. If I never existed the question is completely moot! There would be nothing to compare. It is not a necessary truth, how could it be, we would have to exist to subjectively value life.

[mattbballman31]

It is not a necessary truth, like the law of noncontradiction, for instance.

Yes it is. The law of identity is a necessary truth. So, 12=12 is a necessary truth.

[seer]

Yes it is. The law of identity is a necessary truth. So, 12=12 is a necessary truth.

The necessary truth we are speaking of is existence - that existence is a necessary good. I say it isn't.

[mattbballman31]

The necessary truth we are speaking of is existence - that existence is a necessary good. I say it isn't.

What possible world would have existence not being a good? God exists at all possible worlds.

[seer]

What possible world would have existence not being a good? God exists at all possible worlds.

Well Carp is an atheist. And that being the case why wouldn't non-existence also be a good?

[mattbballman31]

Well Carp is an atheist. And that being the case why wouldn't non-existence also be a good?

If God exists in all possible worlds, then Carp's atheism is incorrect. So . . . saying non-existence would be a good would be incorrect. Do you think God is a necessary being?

[carpedm9587]

But 12=12 can not be any other way, whether you find your existence desirable or not can be different, whether you come to that conclusion under distress or not. It is not a necessary truth, like the law of noncontradiction, for instance. Let me put it this way, the law of contradiction would be true even if no minds were there to discover it. The sun could not both exist and not exist at the same moment. If there were no minds (existence) your a priori truth would not exist, it is based on experience - it is not a necessary truth like the law of noncontradiction, it would be a posteriori knowledge.

My existence is an intrinsic good. It is not about wanting to exist - it is about the nature of existence itself. It cannot be any other way. It is inconsistent to suggest that non-existence is a good for that thing - because the thing doesn't exist to HAVE a good. It is inconsistent that, for a thing, "to be" is a "not good." That is so fundamental to reality, it just amazes me that you are proposing otherwise - and I cannot prove it to you, Seer. If you do not accept your own existence as a good - I have no idea what to say. It as irrational as denying that 12=12.

But it is ONLY the content of my experience that informs me that my existence is a good. If I never existed the question is completely moot! There would be nothing to compare. It is not a necessary truth, how could it be, we would have to exist to subjectively value life.

No - it has nothing to do with experience or wanting or desiring. It has to do with the very nature of existence. Without existence - nothing else can be said about the thing. Existence is the foundational block on which ANY discussion about ANY given thing is premised. The good is intrinsic to existence itself. Not a moral good - not an emotive good - the goodness of existence itself.

Except to keep repeating myself, I have no idea how else to help you see this. If you are capable of rejecting as foundational the goodness of existence, then I cannot possibly see you as rational. Further discussion just seems....well...pointless. It is not possible to have a rational discussion if the very foundations of reason are denied.

[seer]

If God exists in all possible worlds, then Carp's atheism is incorrect. So . . . saying non-existence would be a good would be incorrect. Do you think God is a necessary being?

Of course. Me and Carp are speaking of a priori truths, Carp believes that it is an a priori truth that "existence is a good." I just don't see it from his atheistic perspective.

[carpedm9587]

The necessary truth we are speaking of is existence - that existence is a necessary good. I say it isn't.

Seer - you keep removing the context. I have to begin to wonder if Roy was not correct; are you doing this intentionally? Existence is a necessary condition for the thing in question. Try having a conversation about anything that does not exist. It is not possible. You have to conceive of its existence in order to converse about it. Without existence, nothing else. Ergo - my existence is a necessary condition for anything further to proceed. I cannot even HAVE a moral framework without my existence.

[mattbballman31]

It is not possible to have a rational discussion if the very foundations of reason are denied.

Existence being a necessary good is true, but your reasons for this are an arbitrary, explanatory stopping point. I think you have to go back further.