(August 13, 2019 at 12:00 am)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 11:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: A fucking troll is all I can figure. Acro will go down in AF history as the guy who doesn’t get why it’s bad to torture babies.That’s some reputation to have following you around for net-ternity.

Will someone please explain it to me, too?

Because torturing babies will earn you a hard spanking, Valk. Didn’t you know that?! 😉

(August 13, 2019 at 12:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 13, 2019 at 12:00 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Will someone please explain it to me, too?

Because torturing babies will earn you a hard spanking, Valk. Didn’t you know that?! 😉

So, the more the merrier?

We don't torture babies for fun, but we sure enjoy eating them.

(August 13, 2019 at 12:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: We don't torture babies for fun, but we sure enjoy eating them.

Not for fun, no.

For scientific purposes.

We just have fun doing it.

Only from humane producers. Stress spoils the flesh.

(August 13, 2019 at 12:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 13, 2019 at 12:00 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Will someone please explain it to me, too?

Because torturing babies will earn you a hard spanking, Valk. Didn’t you know that?! 😉

Once while babysitting my nieces and nephew, As they were acting up a bit, I turned the TV to the weather channel and made them watch the weekly forecast for the next 30 minutes.

Am I histories greatest monster?

(August 12, 2019 at 11:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: A fucking troll is all I can figure. Acro will go down in AF history as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad. Nay; he’ll be known as the guy who’d rather be known as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad, than be known as the Christian who admits there are reasons why torturing babies is bad that have nothing to do with a god. That’s some reputation to have following you around for net-ternity.

I’ll take that as a yes, that is the type of answer you were looking for. Now I tried to explain why that answer regardless if I gave it, or anyone else here gave it doesn’t answer your question as to why it’s “objectively wrong”.

Imagine if I claimed that good and bad when it comes to pizza is objective, rejecting those that suggest it’s subjective:

And you ask me why is dominos pizza objectively good?

I start describing to you the physical facts of the pizza, the ratio of cheese to crust the variety of toppings, the degree of crispness.

Perhaps you can see why this response doesn’t actually answer the question? It doesn’t establish the “objectiveness” of good here.

Perhaps you recall Grandizer indicating that good and bad are not in the physical properties of anything, they’re not anywhere.

So when the question is what is “objectively wrong” about x, the answer isn’t anywhere in the physical description of x, or it’s consequences, etc...

The type of answer you’re expecting, that you’re frustrated with me for not providing, is one that doesn’t actually answer the question, it just pulls the wool over your eyes.

(August 13, 2019 at 6:04 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 11:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: A fucking troll is all I can figure. Acro will go down in AF history as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad. Nay; he’ll be known as the guy who’d rather be known as the guy who doesn’t know why torturing babies is bad, than be known as the Christian who admits there are reasons why torturing babies is bad that have nothing to do with a god. That’s some reputation to have following you around for net-ternity.

I’ll take that as a yes, that is the type of answer you were looking for. Now I tried to explain why that answer regardless if I gave it, or anyone else here gave it doesn’t answer your question as to why it’s “objectively wrong”.

Imagine if I claimed that good and bad when it comes to pizza is objective, rejecting those that suggest it’s subjective:

And you ask me why is dominos pizza objectively good?

I start describing to you the physical facts of the pizza, the ratio of cheese to crust the variety of toppings, the degree of crispness.

Perhaps you can see why this response doesn’t actually answer the question? It doesn’t establish the “objectiveness” of good here.

Perhaps you recall Grandizer indicating that good and bad are not in the physical properties of anything, they’re not anywhere.

So when the question is what is “objectively wrong” about x, the answer isn’t anywhere in the physical description of x, or it’s consequences, etc...

The type of answer you’re expecting, that you’re frustrated with me for not providing, is one that doesn’t actually answer the question, it just pulls the wool over your eyes.

Then you really don't seem to grasp what is being said. Descriptors exist as descriptors, they exist abstractly as part of reality, but they don't exist independently of physical objects within reality. They exist, and their existencei s contingent on the physical and on the apprehending mind. But to exist abstractly means there's no location for them in the way there's location for concrete things. So when you ask where is the good located, you might as well ask what is the color of rancid?

And going back to your main point:

Math is itself considered an objective field of study. Yet what is mathematics really other than a collection of models of reality. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is a model of what we see in nature. There's no 2s or 4s in nature in any concrete sense, but we see various objects, some identical to one another, and we perceive separation between these objects. And we came up with models to simulate what we see; we have decided that after 1 comes 2, and 2 after 2 comes 4, hence things such as 2 + 2 = 4.

(August 12, 2019 at 9:33 am)Acrobat Wrote: I generally reserve and think of the notion of good, when used in a moral sense, but not just contained in the expression that supporting  human flourishing or well being is good, but also in the way we say kindness is good, honesty is good. Or when I look at my daughter sweetness, purity, innocence as good. There's some similarity of meaning here, that's hard to define. 

Yes, I can see this. 

Would it be correct to say that you're maintaining a difference between good for something and good in itself? 

I feel this difference, though I'm not sure I can quite justify it. For example, I feel it is good to be kind to people, merely because it is a good way for me to be. When people say that they will only be kind to people who (in their judgment) deserve kindness, I don't understand that. I hope to be kind because it is good for me to be kind, not because I am handing out kindness as a reward. 

So in a sense, I think kindness is good in and of itself. Yet surely, overall, kindness is something that encourages wellbeing, and makes the world a better and richer place for people. So as you say, it's hard to define some absolute difference here. 

Quote:But regardless of how it's defined, we recognize Good is a thing of objective truth, it's out there and not just in our head, or an expression of our feelings, of our likes and dislikes. 

Yes, I agree. Maybe some of the trouble comes from inaccuracy of language. We say "good" to mean both "I like this" and "this is a benefit for the world." 

But if something is a benefit for the world, then there must be an objective reality to it. It really does good in the world, regardless of my personal taste. We may disagree over exactly how much good it does, but this is still not a matter of taste. 

Quote:The objectiveness of Good appears self-evident to me, as self-evident as the sun outside my window. It also was never not self-evident to me, there was no point in which I didn't believe this, and somehow came to believe it. 

It is for everybody else too, in real life. Show people pictures of a slum and a healthy neighborhood, and ask which one is good to raise kids in, and there will be no ambiguity about what "good" is here. 

Again, not every case will be so clear, but that may well be due to lack of knowledge, or confusion. Plato says that nobody ever purposefully chooses the bad, they just make mistakes about what's good.

Quote:They seem to recognize it as truly objective, but there's just more reluctant, reticent to confess as such. I find this reluctance interesting, a lacking of confidence, not so much in objectiveness of good being true, but in confessing it. I'm not sure how to explain that, but it's interesting. 

The whole fight has been frustrating for me, because there's been word confusion and other things. I think people agree that it's objectively bad to do certain things, because it is not a matter of taste. But they insist on the definition of good including reasons. Nothing is good just because it's good, but because it does something or has some result or perhaps avoids something. They're demanding that you define things as good for.... rather than just good in itself. 

But we agreed that the line between these is not clear, or easy to define. 

Quote:In addition the meaning of Good is not described by their particular moral theories or philosophies, but rather it's presupposed, in the overarching elements of these systems. Supporting human well being and flourishing is good,  harming or hindering this is bad. 

Yep, I think that's true. 

But I think that's just historically the way moral arguments go. In ethical discussions, "good" just means "supporting human well being and flourishing is good." Naturally there are tangential arguments, like people who argue that animals have rights and that people should die out or something. But in a sense this is just the same argument, extended to more creatures. The wellbeing of giraffes is brought into the argument, rather than wellbeing being discarded as the standard. 

Quote:Though good and bad are objective truths, they also appear to remain undefined. 

Frankly I wish we could define the damn words, because frustrating threads like this would go away. But I admit they may be Wittgenstein-type words -- the type he showed we use even without clear definitions. Like "game" or "art" or "love." Maybe it's better to leave it fuzzy. 

Quote:I want my daughter to be good, more so than do good. Doing good should flow from her being good.

Absolutely yes. 

There's a moving moment in the Purgatorio, when the pilgrim has had his sins cleaned out, and reaches the top of the mountain. At this point, his guide tells him that he should have no more doubts, that whatever he wants to do will be the right thing. 

For Dante, sin was always just error of judgment, based on misplaced love. When we are right in the head, we do good without hesitation. Simone Weil wrote about crucial moments in life when no thought was required, because doing the right thing appeared as the only possible thing. This is the Christian ideal, I think. 

Quote:That goodness we all seem to perceive objectively, appears to be about being. Perhaps even being itself.

This is important, but too difficult for me. Plato, Plotinus, a lot of the big guys, associated being with the good. Non-being is bad. 

For them, God is both existence itself, and the Good itself. And these are not just a random combination, but the only way it could be. 

Sad to say, I haven't worked out why they say that yet. 

But it means that for Christians, God is essential to morality, to the existence of the Good, because God is essential for the existence of everything, because you can't have anything without existence, which is God. And you can't have good at all without God, who is the good.

I'm working on all this. Reading a tough book about Plotinus right now. It is all fascinating, and more difficult than people make it out to be. 

Anyway, please don't take the insults on this forum to heart. They are bad. Nobody knows all of this, and we are all working on it.

(August 13, 2019 at 6:52 am)Grandizer Wrote: Math is itself considered an objective field of study. Yet what is mathematics really other than a collection of models of reality. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is a model of what we see in nature. There's no 2s or 4s in nature in any concrete sense, but we see various objects, some identical to one another, and we perceive separation between these objects. And we came up with models to simulate what we see; we have decided that after 1 comes 2, and 2 after 2 comes 4, hence things such as 2 + 2 = 4.

If I have apples at home, and you ask me how many apples i have, and I indicated that I have 2. 2 here indicates how many apples i physically possess. You can come and see that I literally have 2 apples.

Quote:Then you really don't seem to grasp what is being said. Descriptors exist as descriptors, they exist abstractly as part of reality, but they don't exist independently of physical objects within reality. They exist, and their existencei s contingent on the physical and on the apprehending mind. But to exist abstractly means there's no location for them in the way there's location for concrete things. So when you ask where is the good located, you might as well ask what is the color of rancid?

I don't think you're grasping. So let's use another analogy.

Let say I find you ugly, not only do I find you ugly, but I claim you're objectively ugly.

Now you ask, "I understand that you find me ugly, but how am I objectively ugly."?

So, then I start listing your physical features, your height, your weight, eye color, the structure of your face, etc...

All of this might indicate why I find you ugly, but it does not establish the "objectiveness" of ugly, even though it's listing a variety of objective facts about your appearance.

You're not only claiming that x is (morally) bad, but that x is objectively bad. When I ask what makes it "objectively" bad, i get a list of physical descriptions of x, like physical descriptions of you.

The answers being provided doesn't establish that "bad" is objective", anymore so than my answers regarding your ugliness, establish "ugly" as objective. Do you get this?