(April 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seriously, I do not see where the problem lies. Are you saying that you cannot make a group of everything and call it one thing? Everything that is real can be considered one thing, the sum total of everything real. The All is the whole of reality. Or what is the same, the All is reality's whole. What alternates have I not considered?
Actually, I can get behind this idea. As long as you keep in mind that we are making a group and considering it as one thing. We already have words for that. We call it "existence" or "reality" or "Universe". My point is that you should realize that this consideration of oneness does not imply anything about how it ought to be or how it should be or how it wants to be.
(April 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Integrity has two parts: wholeness (above) and internal consistency. I understand internal consistency to mean that inviolate relationships exist between the various parts that make up the whole. I consider logical relationships between real things to be inviolate. Logical relationships give us the ability to group things according to common features, etc. Reasoning would not be possible otherwise.
Actually I have no problem if you take All and consistency as two separate axioms. In this case, my problem comes from the use of the word "wholeness" in two different senses.
As indicated before, any wholeness comes into picture when we are considering it as a whole, i.e. we group it together and tag it with an identity. When checking for consistency, we are actually separating it into different parts, tagging each with its own identity and evaluating the relations between separate entities. In this case, they have an identity separate from the whole.
It is when you talk about the two axioms as one, i.e. talk about the integrated All, then we have an issue. Because then you are, at once, trying to consider it as a whole as well as parts with separate entities. And the reason this is a problem is that some attributes that are applicable to the whole, but not the parts, get misidentified as those of the parts. The premises you stated here are good enough - as they stand. The problem lies in their application.
Basically, your premises can be put forward a follows:
1. Everything that is real exists. (without making any indication to whether it exists as a whole or exists as parts)
2. Every existent exists consistently with the totality of existence.
I think you can go ahead on these premises.
(April 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As observed much ealier in this thread, any objective morality rests on deeper metaphysical issues.
Are you avoiding the question? For the purpose of this part of the debate, I've granted that your metaphysical position valid. And in accordance with that position, the purpose of your morality would be to guide everything towards greater consistency and harmony. The question here is - how does this lead to happiness?
(April 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If my metaphysics is not valid. Then I need to see an altenate that is valid. Without a valid alternate there truly is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then anything goes, no right, no wrong, nothing. Who here wants to take the position that no valid metaphysics is possible?
Don't be like that. There are many other possible positions.
1. There is a valid metaphysics and from that we derive that all morality is subjective.
2. We have no and can have no knowledge of a valid metaphysical position and therefore any morality we have is just a matter of expediency. But it may still be objective.
3. There is no valid metaphysical position, but the morality was found carved in a rock and we consider it objective because we don't know of any mind upon which it depends.
There are all sorts of positions out there.
