Beethovens7th Meets Ontologistics: Objectivity in Ethics

First mock, then refute!

I had to post this as a response to Dannidandannikins instead of Ontologistics because Ontologistics blocked me and refused to approve my response.

Ontologistics claims that he "only endorses serious responses." Well, watch this video (the whole thing) and decide for yourself if it's a "serious response." Yes, I get a little bit silly, but there's actually a point to it (maybe if you're smart than Ontologistics you'll get it :p).

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Beethovens7th
• Ontologistics
• Ontology
• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• neo-nihilism
• neo-neo-nihilism
• hahaha
• okay
• if
• you
• say
• so
• whatever
• the
• hell
• that
• means
• philosophy
• ethics
• david
• hume
• is-ought
• dichotomy
• values
• morality
• reason
• rationality

[LudwigVanGallegos]

Instead, Ontologistics advocates and subjective or descriptive form of Ethics. Because the values we have can say nothing of the values that we SHOULD have, we need to recognize that these values are completely arbitrary in order to avoid the logical paradox.

I'm not even sure if I agree with Ontologistic's view. I just wanted to say that this attack on his argument is rather childish.

[Beethovens7th]

@LudwigVanGallegos Saying our values are arbitrary is exactly what I was arguing against. It is just as bad as saying that values don't exist. I'm not simply fighting for the idea that values exist, but that there are proper reasons for us to choose some values over others. I'm arguing that one's values can be rationally justifiable, which is the polar opposite of saying that they are arbitrary.

But, I made that clear enough during the video. Pay attention next time.

[Beethovens7th]

@LudwigVanGallegos Also, you won't resort to any more insults or I will block you.

[SecularNumanist]

There is no answer to your question.

Being reasonable/correct/doing the reasonable thing etc etc is in itself a preference.

I doubt ontologistics would have said "because it is the reasonable thing to do".

Ill use arguments to people like "Taxes are collected at gunpoint"

what i mean by that is not "taxes are collected at gunpoint, therefore it is wrong, therefore you ought not support it", I am simply saying "Taxes are collected at gunpoint, I dont like that. Im assuming you dont right?"

[Beethovens7th]

@SecularNumanist

"There is no answer to your question."

That's my point.

"I am simply saying "Taxes are collected at gunpoint, I dont like that. Im assuming you dont right?""

Yup, and that's why your philosophy sucks, and it will go nowhere.

[MrMansson10]

Value or worth that's ascribed to X is only valid for as long as you live, it ceases to have value the moment you as an individual cease to exist. I say that cus, it's implied that "objective" values is a metaphysical given, instead of what it actually is man made.

[MrMansson10]

With that aside. Let's look at the topic itself. Objectively,existence is meaningless & pointless,it is without value both on the macro & micro levels & any value, or worth placed on either is subjective. Choice is subjective, so, to choose to value one's life or not is a subjective act. You're right in saying choice isn't a duty, but you fail to realise the subjectivity of that choice.

[MrMansson10]

Here's a thought to ponder over: you classify yourself as an objectivist,ok,TBH if you came across some other ideology like say ontologistic's instead of the one you did you would be using the appropriate lingo & interpreting things thru that.

[MrMansson10]

:-D flawless victory!!!

[LudwigVanGallegos]

@Beethovens7th

But I can go one step further, because in order to arrive at a rational Ethics, you must first choose that rationality is of value. Yes, you must make the arbitrary choice to reason. The choice can't be based on any reasons because you must make the choice first.

So, what does Objectivity mean? To me it means, independant of a subject. So, imagine a universe with no minds or subjects of any kind, only rocks and stars and stuff. Does Ethics make any sense in this universe?

[LudwigVanGallegos]

@Beethovens7th

No, you make it very clear that you are arguing against arbitrary Ethics. However, you seem to confuse values that are arrived at rationally, with values that are objective.

For instance, you yourself claim that a person must choose to live in order to even talk about Ethics, and that this choice is completely arbitrary. In fact, it can't be anything but arbitrary because you have to make the choice before you can even talk about reasons to do what you do.

[LudwigVanGallegos]

I don't believe Ontologistics was saying that no values exist whatsoever. He distances himself from that view by calling his Ethics Neo-Nihilsm as opposed to Nihilism proper.

Certainly we must all have values in order to decide how to live, we all must have Ethics, or else we choose death, yet Ontologistics argues that these values merely are not objective. There is no ethical code that everyone should follow everywhere, for all of eternity, which is what an objective ethics would entail.