i gotta say, im very impressed right now.

Bravo!

In short, some individuals when proven wrong are incapable of admitting they are wrong. They will continue scratching and clawing even though every point of fact and reason points to the contrary of the position they hold. That my friend, is the downfall of being overly prideful in your own intelligence.

Great post.

win!

Enjoyed your post man.

lol

hahaha

lol what an idiot

Next time you notice a girl doing that, you should strike a pose and/or ask her if she'll send you a copy.

Thanks, I understand the distinction now.

Also, I may very well need to read up on ethical positions. And I will, if you promise me to read up on logical fallacies - specifically association fallacies, affirming the antecedent, psychologist's fallacy, genetic fallacy, judgmental language and straw man. I am not accusing you of any of these, at the moment, but I do think it would be very useful to take a look at them.

"I'm still unclear what your ethical position is." <-- I don't care for the labels, brand me whichever one you think fit. "utility is a function of objectivity" <--- I disagree. An objective observer may not value one thing over another, or rather, if he does, then he is not objective. All things must have equal value. Utility, how useful something is, depends entirely upon what the individual using it want to use it for. Thus we must ask ourselves what the end goal is, or at least what the purpose of the item is. If it is happiness (which is the main premiss I'm using), then all things are necessarily subjective, because any claim to a thing being useful can be negated by the individual saying "it makes me unhappy." Also, is an object or claim does not function to bring the same effect unto all it effects, then it does not objectivly have the trait useful - hence it has no utility. You cannot argue that utility is objective when it refers to how useful something is to a specific person. That's like saying a color is more beautiful than another color. It depends entirely on who percieves it, and what their opinion is. On the other side, you seem to seperate the three aspects and argue that one must either take all sides of one ethical ideology, or one must take the position of all of another. I disagree. To me, there is no objective right and wrong (as in natural law), but there is right and wrong because we have invented right and wrong (in the same manner that there is no objective hammer, there's only a lump of metal attatched to a piece of wood, hammer is a name we have given a specific form and it depends soley upon the knowledge of how to use a hammer. If that knowledge is not present, then it's not a hammer, but a lump of metal). Lastly, we've invented right and wrong to describe things or actions that, from our perspective, seem beneficial to ourselves or others. But because this opinion may vary, so varies right and wrong. It usually relies heavily upon value (which, again, is a subjective meassure of something's utility), and if a life (as an example) is valued less than a principle, then people may very well die for the principle and none would think there was anything wrong with it. Let's say... Fidelity. If fidelity is more important than a life, then someone who is not faithful may be killed to prevent further infidelity. So to sum up - on one hand, I'm saying there's no objective right and wrong, on the other hand I say it exists, but that individuals create it through their perception of things utility, and lastly I say that it is upheld due to the value of things and actions but that those values are stricly made up and doesn't exist objectivly (in effect, saying horray, or boo."

I'm an ethical subjectivist then. I can see no objective proof for ethics (in effect - it's not a physical law that is independent on the existance of those who percieve it). I think ethical nihilists commit a fallacy when saying that because there's no objective proof of ethics, it does not exist. They're just denying the antecedent. I'm also fairly certain that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and if he had won and took over the world, most people would agree that he did the right thing ridding the world of jews. In fact, his view was shared by a lot of people whom he fought against, early 1900ds was not a buzzling world of equality. In either case, I try to define what good and bad is, and it most certainly seems to be what people find "useful." If utility is what determines all of the parts in ethics, and the utility we seek is that which makes us happy, then killing X is good in the eyes of the individual, if it has utility. That does not mean I think Hitler shouldn't have been put down - I don't share his view. My subjective view, and the subjective view of the rest of the world, has the same value as his, but in greater numbers - and more importantly, greater power. Hence it dominates. I tend to try and not think about things in terms of "good and bad" rather than "X wants, and Y wants." To me, saying that something is good is the same as saying "X, horray!" In that sense, I agree with the nihilist. It's just something someone made up.

I don't know, what is the difference?

This seems to be roughly my understanding, though I'm not scholar of Kierkegaard. "Father of existentialism" was his label, agreed.

good point

Awesome post, very well written.

I don't think 'Madara' has any good plans, killing way too many people. And wants to control everything himself, like a dictator. Have to admit I never thought of the possibility of pulling a 'Itachi'

Well, we happen to approach morality from different perspectives. Yet, it's as if we have an alliance on "the well-being of conscious creatures". I guess Sam Harris was right to say that facts relating to the objective reality underlying human subjectivity exhaust the subject of morality. One can almost say that I'm a moral objectivist. Maybe I should read some more on the subject to clarify my own perspective.