Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vkstu t1_j6d4ne1 wrote

Reply to comment by history_fan40 in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214

Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.

Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6d5v5d wrote

How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.

How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?

1

vkstu t1_j6dclwf wrote

A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dl2wv wrote

Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.

You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.

1

vkstu t1_j6dm1xb wrote

That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.

I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dmmw5 wrote

Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

> negative to existence

Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

1

vkstu t1_j6dodnb wrote

> Life didn’t always exist

Define life.

> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.

Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.

> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.

> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.

1