[Debate] Notion Fundamental Moral with existence of impulse...

[HashiraMadara]

Spoiler

No trolls Please. I am not trolling anymore...

In a previous thread I made: Religion, theists and atheists ended up locking horns in simple resolute of morality. I in particular was against a self righteous non scriptura morality. Meaning: Morality isn't self discover-able nor self sustainable, it is learnt, indoctrinated then practiced.

One notion I was against mostly was "instinctual Morality". Since I find such cannot be possible mathematically. Therefore I ended concluding it isn't a fundamental part of existence.

Existence​

Substantial occupation can be noted as existence: Therefore no sense of communication, observance nor commotion are fundamental for existence as "taking a form" is an existence on its own. One at this point will immediately notice how Morality suddenly falls as a social construct. (It is not even worth further destroying "genetically morality as it non existent itself)
Seeing how "fundamental morality" is non original, questions follow "How original is existence". This is further questioned by "what if I am a projection", "what if this is all an illusion", "what if there is no impulse(freedom)" etc. In all of that Rene Descartes caresses it nicely "I THINK THEREFORE I AM". This is a simple yet powerful statement: it doesn't matter if there is a demon of illusion, or a projection etc fundamental they are doing so to fool "an existing" being meaning they wouldn't be of much use if I was not existing.

I fully conclude that I exist and Morality is scriptura/taught/influenced instead of being fundamental/original.

 

[Genocide]

Instincts have part in ones morality, if they decide whether or not to kill an animal for instance
(i mean as a child)

 

[HashiraMadara]

Instincts have part in ones morality, if they decide whether or not to kill an animal for instance
(i mean as a child)

Since you mention it is a child: one cannot prove a child's decision of throwing a spoon to the left instead of right is instinctual based or not. Therefore I have no obligations to base its decision of not killing as morality

 

[Deadlift]

When I debated Shelke about the existence of objective moral values, he struggled to justify his belief regarding morality being a mere societal construct. Now, I know that you disown that view and I don't disagree enough for debating this issue with you, I just have a question, similar to the one I asked him: If morality is neither a social construct nor something that we can discover for ourselves, where did it come from? why do we find ourselves in a world where people follow a set of moral values? why do we follow it ourselves?

 

[Оdin]

Instincts have part in ones morality, if they decide whether or not to kill an animal for instance
(i mean as a child)

The one test to see if your child (is or) has the potential to grow into a sociopath/psychopath.

 

[HashiraMadara]

When I debated Shelke about the existence of objective moral values, he struggled to justify his belief regarding morality being a mere societal construct. Now, I know that you disown that view and I don't disagree enough for debating this issue with you, I just have a question, similar to the one I asked him: If morality is neither a social construct nor something that we can discover for ourselves, where did it come from? why do we find ourselves in a world where people follow a set of moral values? why do we follow it ourselves?

If you read carefully you'll notice I wrote on the conclusion: Morality is non fundamental and is a social construct that can learned or influenced... Meaning it is mostly likely a cultural or religious doctrine

 

[Marin]

Do you mind justifying your belief that "Cogito ergo sum" is correct?

 

[HashiraMadara]

Do you mind justifying your belief that "Cogito ergo sum" is correct?

I'll try to put it in mathematically terms: If you existence is "x" there are million possibilities of equations and forms that "x" can take to form substantial results. Therefore "x" is some number definitely but not "0".

In English: "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order" DOUBTING is proof enough that we are independent existentials meaning it doesn't matter what number "x" takes all we know it is != 0.

So meaning there would be no illusions rallying me if a me never existed in the first place.

 

[Оdin]

When I debated Shelke about the existence of objective moral values, he struggled to justify his belief regarding morality being a mere societal construct. Now, I know that you disown that view and I don't disagree enough for debating this issue with you, I just have a question, similar to the one I asked him: If morality is neither a social construct nor something that we can discover for ourselves, where did it come from? why do we find ourselves in a world where people follow a set of moral values? why do we follow it ourselves?

I'll keep it short.

Morals exist and evolve because of human emotions (e.g. pain, pleasure...etc). When something gives you pleasure, it's good; when something gives you pain, it's bad. But we are all different so what one human considers good another considers bad, which is why we have varying sets of morals standards across the world. Humans are in constant change because of emotions. What we experience changes us, we learn from it, then we pass it down to our children. For example: people getting killed or beaten to a bloody pulp left and right for being disrespectful. That will surely make the average person take a long pause and not do the same; and once person has a child he/she will pass it down to protect the child. Everything and anything has the potential to shape a person's morality, be it a book, movie, or another person. That's my take on it, at least.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Chikombo]

I don't think people are born evil and raised good. I also don't think you are designed to be good from your dna, people can choose to do bad or be extra good.

 

[Marin]

I'll try to put it in mathematically terms: If you existence is "x" there are million possibilities of equations and forms that "x" can take to form substantial results. Therefore "x" is some number definitely but not "0".

There is a big difference between an abstract entity such as a mathematical variable and a concrete object such as yourself, if nothing else in the fact that mathematics follow specific strict axioms which aren't really obvious for the "real" world.

In English: "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order" DOUBTING is proof enough that we are independent existentials meaning it doesn't matter what number "x" takes all we know it is != 0.

Actually, many have pointed out so far that doubting is merely proof of thought. To derive a thinking mechanism from thought may be justified but to jump to a self-aware or self-sustaining thought generator like the human mind is not. So, indeed we may not be 0 but we still need not be who you think we are. For it is just as plasuible (in fact some would argue more plausible than not) that we are all simply Boltzmann's brains, or put more precisely, illusions of those same Boltzmann's brains.

Basically, if you're arguing that thought points to thought processes than yes you are right, but this was never really a point of contention. What the cogito needs to show is that our existence as we percieve it is the actual reality rather than something else. This, however, you have not established.

 

[HashiraMadara]

There is a big difference between an abstract entity such as a mathematical variable and a concrete object such as yourself, if nothing else in the fact that mathematics follow specific strict axioms which aren't really obvious for the "real" world.

Mathematics is inseparable from reality. It is a language used to describe reality in "fundamental basic form" as there is no way one can further break down ideals than mathematics can. So in the simplest of forms we decided to start "remove all spatial reality and you're left with the infamous I. So I can then say it is safe to use mathematics to describe the for-stated elegance since it's no longer complex but simple thoughts in vacuum"

Actually, many have pointed out so far that doubting is merely proof of thought. To derive a thinking mechanism from thought may be justified but to jump to a self-aware or self-sustaining thought generator like the human mind is not. So, indeed we may not be 0 but we still need not be who you think we are. For it is just as plasuible (in fact some would argue more plausible than not) that we are all simply Boltzmann's brains, or put more precisely, illusions of those same Boltzmann's brains.

Basically, if you're arguing that thought points to thought processes than yes you are right, but this was never really a point of contention. What the cogito needs to show is that our existence as we percieve it is the actual reality rather than something else. This, however, you have not established.

Well I would gladly accept that logic since: "Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

That simple yet but poetic self doubt still holds true and firm in that situation as well :sdo:

 

[Marin]

Mathematics is inseparable from reality. It is a language used to describe reality in "fundamental basic form" as there is no way one can further break down ideals than mathematics can. So in the simplest of forms we decided to start "remove all spatial reality and you're left with the infamous I. So I can then say it is safe to use mathematics to describe the for-stated elegance since it's no longer complex but simple thoughts in vacuum"

The applicability of mathematics to the real world doesn't change the fact that it follows strict axioms while the laws of nature are merely descriptory rather than necessitarian. It's also irrelevant to the fact that you, as a mind, cannot be compared to a simple container (variable), especially not if you're an epiphenomenalist (as I think you are).

Well I would gladly accept that logic since: "Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

That simple yet but poetic self doubt still holds true and firm in that situation as well :sdo:

This "poetic" quote does nothing to refute what I said. There will be a stream of thought, not a conscious agent to be decieved. This is why Hume used the term "theatre of consciousness".