Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vkstu t1_j6dm1xb wrote

Reply to comment by history_fan40 in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214

That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.

I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.

1

history_fan40 t1_j6dmmw5 wrote

Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

> negative to existence

Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

1

vkstu t1_j6dodnb wrote

> Life didn’t always exist

Define life.

> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.

Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.

> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.

> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.

1