Time For Martial Law...

[seer]

To human beings, their survival is "a good" whether you call it a moral good or not.

Right that is our subjective belief.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard that does not answer the question. What humans subjectively want is not the point or what constitutes human nature. If you can not show that human survival or flourishing is a moral good then you are just using an arbitrary starting point to avoid the question.

[Charles]

Right that is our subjective belief.

What does "our" mean in the statement above?

[Leonhard]

What does "our" mean in the statement above?

Seer is arguing that we need reasons for wanting to live independent of merely wanting it. I agree but would base that entirely in the final cause of all living organisms which, among other things, is to protect themselves and live.

[Charles]

Seer is arguing that we need reasons for wanting to live independent of merely wanting it. I agree but would base that entirely in the final cause of all living organisms which, among other things, is to protect themselves and live.

I understand that but I would like to hear seer explain who the "we" are. There is a point to that with regard to whether it can be universalized that I have a feeling he has missed. But let's give him the option to explain who the "we" are.

[seer]

The only way you avoid circular reasoning is by avoiding my question. Which means you have no argument for why human survival is moral good, and since you can not establish that necessary premise everything that follows is pointless. You can make a rational argument for what is conducive for the survival and flourishing of cows but that doesn't tell us that cow life is a moral good.

[Charles]

The only way you avoid circular reasoning is by avoiding my question. Which means you have no argument for why human survival is moral good, and since you can not establish that necessary premise everything that follows is pointless. You can make a rational argument for what is conducive for the survival and flourishing of cows but that doesn't tell us that cow life is a moral good.

You realize that by your own logic this goes for everything you say yourself?

[seer]

You realize that by your own logic this goes for everything you say yourself?

Charles are you this much of a low life that you refuse to leave this thread after being asked twice?

[Charles]

Charles are you this much of a low life that you refuse to leave this thread after being asked twice?

I have only seen you ask me to do so once in a situation where you continued to adress my posts and my person. If you ask me to leave, I will do so. I would, however, rather see you answer the questions and adress the points.

[Leonhard]

The only way you avoid circular reasoning is by avoiding my question.

Except I did, I outlined a moral philosophy for you. A sketch level. I then asked you to show where the circularity was, and all you did was ask a question that had nothing to do with it. I then engaged that, tried to unfold what I thought you were going for, and asked where the circularity was, and now you're accusing me of avoiding the question?

You're not making any sense.

Which means you have no argument for why human survival is moral good, and since you can not establish that necessary premise everything that follows is pointless. You can make a rational argument for what is conducive for the survival and flourishing of cows but that doesn't tell us that cow life is a moral good.

Seer, this also isn't a circular argument.

I really don't think you know what a circular argument is. I think you're confusing a premise, or a postulate, or an axiom with 'begging the question'.

[seer]

Except I did, I outlined a moral philosophy for you. A sketch level. I then asked you to show where the circularity was, and all you did was ask a question that had nothing to do with it. I then engaged that, tried to unfold what I thought you were going for, and asked where the circularity was, and now you're accusing me of avoiding the question?

You're not making any sense.

Seer, this also isn't a circular argument.

I really don't think you know what a circular argument is. I think you're confusing a premise, or a postulate, or an axiom with 'begging the question'.

I think we are speaking past each other. So humor me, why is human survival a moral good?

[Leonhard]

I think we are speaking past each other. So humor me, why is human survival a moral good?

I think that would be an interesting thing to explore. Though really I recommend that you just read Nichomechean Ethics, preferably with a good commentary. Or read Scholastic Metaphysics by Ed Feser (he also has plenty of articles online explaining that philosophy). If you want a really deep dive I suggest Fr. Garrigou Lagrange.

However, in this discussion, to counter your claim that this kind of morality is circular I don't have to answer that question. It is up to you to show that circular logic was employed.

Though I think you've thoroughly confused the terms 'begging the question', 'circular logic', 'axioms', 'premises' etc... with eachother. You seem to think that these terms are equivalent, and that a premise is the same as begging the question. Which is what I think we ought to discuss.

[Cow Poke]

I have only seen you ask me to do so once in a situation where you continued to adress my posts and my person. If you ask me to leave, I will do so. I would, however, rather see you answer the questions and adress the points.

Moderated By: CP

Seer - if you ask Charles to leave, we generally allow one response to that request, then he's gone.
If you continue to address him, or talk about him, it's generally accepted that he's allowed to respond.

I have not been following the thread this closely, but if you want him gone, please state so clearly, then do not address him or mention him again.

Charles - I think it sounds like you understand - If he asks you to leave, do so, and he should refrain from addressing you again.

NOTE - DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS OFFICIAL NOTICE other than as follows below...

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JimL]

The only way you avoid circular reasoning is by avoiding my question. Which means you have no argument for why human survival is moral good, and since you can not establish that necessary premise everything that follows is pointless. You can make a rational argument for what is conducive for the survival and flourishing of cows but that doesn't tell us that cow life is a moral good.

What do you mean by moral good? Do you mean why is it morally right that humans ought to survive? If so, what does that have to do with "good"? It's "good" that we survive, because it is our desire to survive, correct? That's why you cherish the idea of eternal life, because you desire to exist. But that has nothing to do with right and wrong, with morality? So, I;m not sure what you are getting at, seer.

[seer]

I think that would be an interesting thing to explore. Though really I recommend that you just read Nichomechean Ethics, preferably with a good commentary. Or read Scholastic Metaphysics by Ed Feser (he also has plenty of articles online explaining that philosophy). If you want a really deep dive I suggest Fr. Garrigou Lagrange.

However, in this discussion, to counter your claim that this kind of morality is circular I don't have to answer that question. It is up to you to show that circular logic was employed.

Though I think you've thoroughly confused the terms 'begging the question', 'circular logic', 'axioms', 'premises' etc... with eachother. You seem to think that these terms are equivalent, and that a premise is the same as begging the question. Which is what I think we ought to discuss.

No Leonhard, I said that if not circular you would have to fall on one of the other horns...

Remember I said: It is circular because at some point the moral question must stop, or you have an infinite regression of explanations. Instead of circular you could just make a dogmatic assertion

It seems that you are opting for the dogmatic assertion (as far as why human survival is a moral good). That is no more justifiable than a circular argument. And I did read the Feser book you suggested a couple of years back. I'm not questioning your ability to come up with a deductive argument concerning a moral system that would be conducive to human survival. The question that must be asked is why is human survival a moral good in the first place. That answer will either be circular in nature or a mere assertion. Take your pick.