5 ms·

>I didn't do that? There are "genuine" "why" questions, they just are nonsensical (when not asking about a demonstrated conscious entity). If you accept that w

>I didn't do that? There are "genuine" "why" questions, they just are nonsensical (when not asking about a demonstrated conscious entity). If you accept that why questions are only applicable in the context of a "demonstrated conscious entity", and you are a believer in strict determinism, then there are no genuine why questions. >Also, if you are interested in a longer explanation of why the concept of "intrinsic value" doesn't make much sense, you might be interested in this video: https://youtu.be/2ASKV7Wg2jE https://youtu.be/2ASKV7Wg2jE If you want to learn more about the concept of "intrinsic value" I suggest you start here for a history of the concept and a summary of current work on the subject-- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic..., and not on a popular speaker's YouTube channel. Rejecting the concept of intrinsic value raises many problems for ethical frameworks--none of which have been adequately solved. Don't pretend that it's a settled topic because you said it is. It's only during the last century or so that philosophers have even entertained the idea that it might be possible to have an ethical system without the concept of intrinsic value.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> If you accept that why questions are only applicable in the context of a "demonstrated conscious entity", and you are a believer in strict determinism, then there are no genuine why questions. Your point being? > If you want to learn more about the concept of "intrinsic value" I suggest you start here for a history of the concept and a summary of current work on the subject-- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic..., and not on a popular speaker's YouTube channel. Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will help with accepting a logical contradiction as truth? > Rejecting the concept of intrinsic value raises many problems for ethical frameworks--none of which have been adequately solved. Don't pretend that it's a settled topic because you said it is. So? I am not pretending anything, it's just an obvious fact that "intrinsic value" is nonsense, and it doesn't become less nonsensical because rejecting the nonsense maybe raises problems for ethical frameworks. Really, this not the difficult question that you make it out to be. You might as well argue that there is intrinsic taste and that it's an unsolved problem for culinary frameworks if we think that whether something tastes good or bad is not intrinsic in the thing we taste. Because, how do we know something really tastes good if it isn't intrinsic in the thing? You may be asking questions back and forth, but ultimately, you will end up with a non-self-evident assumption that a certain taste is a good taste. An axiom of taste that defines your way of eating. Yeah, that's all kinda, sorta true, but also completely missing the point. All of that, both for taste and for ethics, simply comes down to consensus and individual preferences, which themselves are broadly based in evolution (as is the interest in consensus for a social species), which is based on natural selection according to the environment our ancestors lived in, which behaves according to some natural laws. It's "how" questions all the way down, some of them answered, many not, with no indication that "why" questions are anything but baseless speculation. > It's only during the last century or so that philosophers have even entertained the idea that it might be possible to have an ethical system without the concept of intrinsic value. So? It's only during the last century or so that scientists have entertained the idea that light is quantized and that there is an absolute speed limit to the universe, and marginally more than that that there are things like bacteria causing disease or that phlogiston is not a thing, or that biodiversity can be explained by mutation of DNA and natural selection. Yeah, people were ignorant in the past--fortunately, that's no reason to stay ignorant?
- learc83 8y ago
  >Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will help with accepting a logical contradiction as truth? >fortunately, that's no reason to stay ignorant? Do you see the irony? You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > Do you see the irony? Nope, there isn't any. > You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Nope, I don't think I do. But feel free to make a concise argument as to how I am wrong. > Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. By anyone serious, or just theologians? The fact that something is "debated in academia" does not really mean anything, unfortunately. > Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Well, except that the gap in that argument can trivially be shown in one sentence. > Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable. More importantly, it shows that consensus is all that ultimately matters, whether that is good or not, which was exactly my point.
    - learc83 8y ago
      I'm not going to rehash the last century of metaethical debate with you, and you seem to be under the impression that only theologians disagree with you. Your entire argument is just a half formed version of metaethical moral relativism, which is a minority view among philosophers. Your views are demonstrably not self-evident.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> If you accept that why questions are only applicable in the context of a "demonstrated conscious entity", and you are a believer in strict determinism, then there are no genuine why questions. Your point being? > If you want to learn more about the concept of "intrinsic value" I suggest you start here for a history of the concept and a summary of current work on the subject-- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic..., and not on a popular speaker's YouTube channel. Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will help with accepting a logical contradiction as truth? > Rejecting the concept of intrinsic value raises many problems for ethical frameworks--none of which have been adequately solved. Don't pretend that it's a settled topic because you said it is. So? I am not pretending anything, it's just an obvious fact that "intrinsic value" is nonsense, and it doesn't become less nonsensical because rejecting the nonsense maybe raises problems for ethical frameworks. Really, this not the difficult question that you make it out to be. You might as well argue that there is intrinsic taste and that it's an unsolved problem for culinary frameworks if we think that whether something tastes good or bad is not intrinsic in the thing we taste. Because, how do we know something really tastes good if it isn't intrinsic in the thing? You may be asking questions back and forth, but ultimately, you will end up with a non-self-evident assumption that a certain taste is a good taste. An axiom of taste that defines your way of eating. Yeah, that's all kinda, sorta true, but also completely missing the point. All of that, both for taste and for ethics, simply comes down to consensus and individual preferences, which themselves are broadly based in evolution (as is the interest in consensus for a social species), which is based on natural selection according to the environment our ancestors lived in, which behaves according to some natural laws. It's "how" questions all the way down, some of them answered, many not, with no indication that "why" questions are anything but baseless speculation. > It's only during the last century or so that philosophers have even entertained the idea that it might be possible to have an ethical system without the concept of intrinsic value. So? It's only during the last century or so that scientists have entertained the idea that light is quantized and that there is an absolute speed limit to the universe, and marginally more than that that there are things like bacteria causing disease or that phlogiston is not a thing, or that biodiversity can be explained by mutation of DNA and natural selection. Yeah, people were ignorant in the past--fortunately, that's no reason to stay ignorant?

learc83 8y ago
>Haha, seriously? You think that reading all those pages would help me understand that there is such a thing as a valuer absent the valuer? Like, reading will help with accepting a logical contradiction as truth? >fortunately, that's no reason to stay ignorant? Do you see the irony? You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Do you see the irony? Nope, there isn't any. > You really need to read more about intrinsic value before you dismiss it. Nope, I don't think I do. But feel free to make a concise argument as to how I am wrong. > Your arguments have been made and debated in academia, some of them have been refuted, and some of them are still being argued. By anyone serious, or just theologians? The fact that something is "debated in academia" does not really mean anything, unfortunately. > Most of what you're saying is exactly as convincing as someone who argues that God must exist because nothing can exist without a cause. Well, except that the gap in that argument can trivially be shown in one sentence. > Also given how grayed out most of your responses are, maybe consensus isn't self evidently preferable. More importantly, it shows that consensus is all that ultimately matters, whether that is good or not, which was exactly my point.
  - learc83 8y ago
    I'm not going to rehash the last century of metaethical debate with you, and you seem to be under the impression that only theologians disagree with you. Your entire argument is just a half formed version of metaethical moral relativism, which is a minority view among philosophers. Your views are demonstrably not self-evident.