Sorry I didn't realize I was dealing with a philosopher and needed to adjust to his special language. like "absurd" and "retarded mental faculties".
are you the type of philosopher who is familiar with ad hominem, or are you the retarded type like me?
...or wait... I forget if I'm not allowed to refer to the concept of categories without being called retarded. yOu TeLl mE PlsEAze
ad hominems don’t have any bearing on the argument, correct.
you didn’t want to wrestle with the argument, just make obtuse red herrings and non secquitars, all under the pretense of being taken serious.
you should be mocked for such behavior. ad hominems are great for that
You claimed that if one cannot have an appeal to an objective moral system, then the idea of negotiating with a captor in a murderous hostage situation is "absurd".
What about persuasion and negotiationis absurd? There are two people with conflicting desires. If they can come to an agreement or compromise, they will. If they can't, and one insists on forcing their desire, and he's more powerful, he'll get it.
I don't think this is an enjoyable fact. I find it unpleasant, it brings me discomfort and unhappiness. Many other people react to it similarly.
Nowhere in that complex do you need to bring "objective moral standards" in for the situation to be "non-absurd".
I dont think it's me who is unwilling to deal with the actual contenr in front of us here. Which is that the introduction of "objective morality" doesn't provide any explanatory power, it just gives those who claim they know the truth leverage in their persuasion tactics. Doesn't make it true
a negotiation, a compromise, is two people with power coming to an agreement that works for both.
if only one side has power, that’s not a negotiation. there is no discussion.
there can be no compromise
your claim would be like saying a person can have a discussion with a rock. that’s not a discussion, and it is absurd to say it is.
This is why I said at the outset that **some** situations do come back to might makes right, unfortunately. Yes, if a person tries to have a discussion with a rock, that's not going to work (for objective reality reasons). It's up to that person to either not engage in fruitless discussions or to spend their time working on rock-discussion projects to attempt to make their otherwise infeasible goals perhaps more feasible.
I dont even really see where we disagree, if anywhere.
materialism either means something or it doesn’t.
that’s the disagreement
if a materialist uses logic, makes appeals to logic, then they are materialists in name only.
they actively behave in a manner contrary to their purported belief
there is an intelligible moral order which comes from the object that is a human being.
slavery isn’t wrong because some don’t prefer it, it’s objectively wrong because it is contrary to the nature of the human object.
okay yea that's where we disagree. I don't think math is incommensurate with materialism.
And I don't think that "the human object" is anything special, "just" a very complex adaptive system.
adapting to what is the question?
whatever it’s adapting to is the tether to objective reality.
it’s not adapting to speculative imagination, or subjective preferences, correct?
can we agree there, or you still have issue?
Yea I totally agree - adapting to its environment. Like all other Darwinian processes.
we finally bridged talking past each other.
if that’s how you need to think about objective morality, you’re already there.
if i understand you correctly, this should be in your language:
human beings are complex adaptive systems adapting according to their environment.
being social creautures, always in relation to others, be it parents friends, know and unknown neighbors, “others” are part of our environment. friend or foe
just like fish adapt fins to better swim through water
humans adapt morals to better navigate social relations.
objective morality is simply one adaptive system adapting to the presence of another adaptive system.
this adaptive process is not driven internally/subjectively within one person, but driven exterallly/objectively by an objective environmental condition: the presence of another complex adaptive system.
it’s not simply having preferences, it aligning your preferences to the environmental conditions, which for humans includes social relation
the philosophical word for this is:
intersubjective
one subjective being interacting with the object of another subjective being
if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
if ur long truth, ur just aligning your preferences to rhe objective order
and that provides metaphysically grounded ethical defense to why murder,
theft, slavery, etc etc are objectively bad/evil/contrary to nature
and not just accidental preferences
how did i do?
You did very very well.
Just clarify this part for me before I respond. What exactly do you mean by this:
> if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
here is a stab at it:
if a person prefers to adapt towards a “might makes right” strategy, they might have what appears to be a short term gain but in the long run will cost them everything.
not because they are unlucky, or didn’t execute the strategy properly, but because they are adapting in a manner contrary to the objective organization/structure of inter-related subjects
getting smaller fins and attempting to go against the current, a bad combo.
a live by the sword die by the sword type of thing
