Marco's axioms.

 Nothing can diminish what is good.  Not even evil.  Therefore, what is worth more than dying? What is axiom of death is that death is eternal.

MA2025 

°•○○•○•••

Interlocutor 

It's my understanding that the axiomatic argument (Life is good) is negated by Hume's Guillotine. The author attempts to negate Hume's Is/Ought problem, by arguing that "good" is not a moral prescription (Ought) but an ontological truth (IS). The two main issues I have is 1: Good can be used relatively (good football player) trivially (Good meal) as well as an axiomatic value judgment (ethic and aesthetic) However, in all three examples of its usage; "Good" is still a prescriptive, not descriptive. 2: If "Life is Good" is axiomatic, then the axiom's soundness is verifiable by being "SELF-EVIDENT" But life is not necessarily preferable to death in some circumstances, therefore it is not self evident, therefore the axiom (Life is good) is not sound.

°•●●○•••••••

My rebuttal:

Kirk Lazenby: further to your implication. Hume's Guillotine is false. My point here is; good is self evident even in replacement of what is. No axiom can trade the claim I stated with something else. Which in my mind proves as false.

Sorry.

°●°●°●°●▪︎°°▪︎

Interlocutor;

Marco Almeida: So here's why I see Hume's problem as a vital hurdle one must at the very least treat with upmost epistemological respect: firstly; Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber by Hume's work. Kant's subsequent critique of pure reason, which sort to address Hume, took Kant seven years to write, and never succeeded in negating Hume's is-ought problem. Kant's Newtonian categorical imperative is self referential, not an ontological truth. Kant, therefore, could only bridge the gap between the is and the ought, by inserting an If/Then clause (hypothetical imperative) But Hume's problem still held. Secondly; every subsequent intellectual endeavour to negate Hume's problem has been, upon examination, simply an attempt to either burry the ought under the is (which is what I believe the original author of this argument I'm unpacking has done) or as with Sam Harris; pretend it does not exit. Which also hides the ought behind the is. There was a third method, which was embarrassingly posited by of all people, an academic philosopher; which was to say "I think Hume's problem is just silly"

●°○°●°▪︎°●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎▪︎°

My rebuttal:

Kirk Lazenby: the is-ought problem??  That's exactly what we were discussing.  We are not talking about the will to which Kant disagrees which without Hume challenging Kant’s position.  Therefore, we - as in - you and I... cannot figuratively nor epistemologically near the ratio present. (Your words :: not mine.)  We can say this in failing to prove anything with any relation.  Therefore, the ought quotient exists as it is negated by your original thought.  That ¹life is good ²because "life is good" ³it is not a moral prescription for life itself.  Why?  It is the answer to (again... your words :: not mine) that anything is worse than death > goes beyond reason (my first person argument is descriptive) vs yours.  Otherwise, the axiom is a lie. In your argument you portray everythng is worse than death.  I BLATANTLY REFUTED IT.

Why is Hume vs Kant even as relevent if it is: worse than death.  Therefore, my argument is unsound.  No logic.

You are allowed to deny it.  I give you that right.

But to infer my argument is not as thoughtful as it should be epistemological in value holds no water.

I have balanced your argument and satsified with my response.  You are not.  Therefore, your negation of it is true.  Which I CAN say is also false.  (e.g. this IS ~epistemology.)

We are not here commiting to circular arguements IF what is we are both saying cannot be truthfully inferred.  Unless ONE not BOTH our arguments are inferior. (i.e. not untrue)

::  

Kirk Lazenby 

Quote:

"Kant's Newtonian categorical imperative is self referential, not an ontological truth. Kant, therefore, could only bridge the gap between the is and the ought, by inserting an If/Then clause (hypothetical imperative) But Hume's problem still held. Secondly; every subsequent intellectual endeavour to negate Hume's problem has been, upon examination, simply an attempt to either burry the ought under the is (which is what I believe the original author of this argument I'm unpacking has done) or as with Sam Harris; pretend it does not exit. Which also hides the ought behind the is. There was a third method, which was embarrassingly posited by of all people, an academic philosopher; which was to say "I think Hume's problem is just silly"

°●°●°○●°●°●°

Rebuttal:

Everything I stated is sound and above level philosophy. I will say this: you made a sound argument. So have I. That is the position I took.  

Sorry.

MA2025 

°○●○•••○••••

Remembering that I have to prove to you I want to die because I am prone and not impervious to disease.  That unequivocally requires an antecedent.  Therefore, this in theory qualifies as descriptive.  Everything I stated herein acts as axiom (even if worse than death), or unless I am proving I am immunely compromised.  This ALL MEANS SOMETHING.

"But life is not necessarily preferable to death in some circumstances, therefore it is not self evident, therefore the axiom (Life is good) is not sound." -Kirk Lazenby

In my theory, the ontological gave good it's name. That name what is x, y, or z.  It can be universally applied.  Many would agree.

Arguing that it lacks soundness is not a disqualification.  The axiom is then not prescriptive.  We define what is morally congruent or not.

Kirk Lazenby: to me... virtue is automatic. In my mind, what that looks like is differently applied in some infinite fashion. We all have the ability to persuade using unfiltered half baked truths. (I would be lying ontologically otherwise.) Therefore, there is a method and a dialect when tracing logic symbolically. Especially when logic is being debunked either circularly or a process of induction. It cannot be both using philosophy.

Interestingly enough, using axiom as some form paranoia in order to use that as a distraction from actual logic is a skill. I would accuse anyone of not commiting to or irrevocably making arguments. Only to prove that the law of non contradiction into what is provided.

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

-The Peg

°•●°●°●●°●°▪︎°

End.