User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 2:15 PM UTCAlso, you appear to have just stated that something is wrong sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Which means it is relative. Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time...
-
2018-06-27 at 2:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Just because people word their statements in a certain way or feel that something is a matter of fact doesn't mean it is. "It's wrong to murder babies" is obviously relative. Example: abortion clinics.
Well there's a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Also a person who thinks killing young children is generally wrong but thinks abortion is acceptable doesn't take a relativist position. Ethical realism doesn't (necessarily) mean you think there are a set moral laws and no situational fact can change what's right (e.g. abortion vs. infanticide). It just means that moral statements are propositions with truth values rather than mere statements of opinion. -
2018-06-27 at 2:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Also, you appear to have just stated that something is wrong sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Which means it is relative. Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time…
No, you've said some things are both right and wrong, simultaneously, dependent on perspective (you have an alien example). That's entirely different from saying the moral status of an action is sometimes right or sometimes wrong contingent on other situational facts. No one here has disagreed with the latter, almost everyone would disagree with the former. -
2018-06-27 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well there's a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Also a person who thinks killing young children is generally wrong but thinks abortion is acceptable doesn't take a relativist position. Ethical realism doesn't (necessarily) mean you think there are a set moral laws and no situational fact can change what's right (e.g. abortion vs. infanticide). It just means that moral statements are propositions with truth values rather than mere statements of opinion.
If you believe that the truth of a statement like "X is immoral" depends on the situation and is not always true, then you seem to believe that morality is relative. -
2018-06-27 at 2:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No, you've said some things are both right and wrong, simultaneously, dependent on perspective (you have an alien example). That's entirely different from saying the moral status of an action is sometimes right or sometimes wrong contingent on other situational facts. No one here has disagreed with the latter, almost everyone would disagree with the former.
Why? A person blows up an abortion clinic. They believe it was a moral action. The people who own the clinic believe it was immoral. This is possible because morality is relative. -
2018-06-27 at 3:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Why? A person blows up an abortion clinic. They believe it was a moral action. The people who own the clinic believe it was immoral. This is possible because morality is relative.
If you believe morality is objective and that there is something objective we can look at to determine who is correct in a situation like this, what is it? -
2018-06-27 at 4:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Also, you appear to have just stated that something is wrong sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Which means it is relative. Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time…
You don't understand what the word "subjective" means, you fuckwit. An action can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances surrounding it. That doesn't mean it's subjective. An equation can be equal to 20 or 35, and two different equations can be equal to 12, it depends on the information presented but that doesn't mean mathematics is "subjective".The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-27 at 4:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain You don't understand what the word "subjective" means, you fuckwit. An action can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances surrounding it. That doesn't mean it's subjective. An equation can be equal to 20 or 35, and two different equations can be equal to 12, it depends on the information presented but that doesn't mean mathematics is "subjective".
A person blows up an abortion clinic and believes it was the moral thing to do. The person who owns this clinic believes it was an immoral thing to do. That's clearly subjective. -
2018-06-27 at 5:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe That post was meant for Lanny. Lanny claimed morality is objective, and used baby murder as an example. I still don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you sniffed too many farts?
Systems with the ability and impetus to begin to exist and sustain their own persistence, are oriented to do so. That's just a tautological, objective truth. Additionally, any system that has the tendency ("desire") to act or be a certain way, has the imperative to be that way and actualize itself that way. This is also a tautological truth. These facts, and the ability to deal with and around them, are the basis of my morality.
Social contracts seem to be just such a system, for individuals as well as for the concept of a social contract itself. Certain behaviours are logically optimized for such a living system, and a supersystem composed of the interactions of such individual life systems, to exist, and to form such a system is a logical necessity for any such individual who is born and respects their own right to life, and wants it preserved. It could apply to aliens or super intelligent cows or something else entirely. If you are born and want to do know the most optimal way to continue exercising your freedom to do stuff as a result of being alive, then my moral system applies to you.
Let me make a better argument for you, because you are a mongoloid.
Lets think about an alternatively morally oriented being; a "Mr Meeseeks" from the cartoon Rick and Morty.
If you haven't watched it, Mr Meeseeks are creatures that are created spontaneously from nothingness with the press of a button, and their primary and singular higher motivation is to cease to exist, because existence is torture to Meeseeks. Upon being summoned, you can ask a Mr Meeseeks to perform a task, and the only way for them to cease to exist is to successfully carry out the task they are assigned. That task thus becomes their singular checkpoint on the path to nonexistence.
The box that summons a Meeseeks is designed by Rick, it did not emerge as a direct result of evolution etc, it is essentially a tool designed by rick. This is important because it is borne of a different set of motivations and pretty much shows us a completely valid alternative set of morals.
Such a being can have a completely different and incompatible set of moral motivations because
1) Existence is an inherent negative to a Meeseeks. Its natural impetus is to reject its right to life, and end its own life, and propagation is a negative to it. Not dying means ultimate suffering for the Meeseeks.
2) In order to end its life and its further suffering, it must perform whatever task it was assigned.
So to a Meeseeks, the most logical course of action would be to do whatever is necessary to accomplish its task and go back into nonexistence. The basis for his behaviour is no different than mine, I just happen to have the desire to keep living and the Meeseeks does not. He would simply be acting on his self interest, as I am acting in mine. I don't need to make that judgement for him.
However, the fun part of this example is that we can dissect individual moral actions through the use of the Meeseeks as a tool to isolate each consideration and its circumstances, because it gears anything except steps towards accomplishing that one goal is basically a negative.
However, even this still works in my moral system. If I was in the position of the Meeseeks and assumed his motivations, I would say it is perfectly reasonable for the Meeseeks to act whatever way it needs to in order to accomplish its goal, but I have no obligation to allow it to accomplish that goal if it violates my rights. I could judge the Meeseeks as being perfectly morally consistent, even if it murders someone, because it has no desire to preserve its right to life or continue to do anything except its right to life. However, even the Meeseeks must still play moral ball with us, because if it just goes out and does whatever, we could still arrest or restrain it and hinder its from its primary goal, which is nonexistence… so even if you don't value your own right to life (because Meeseeks skip straight to the "freedom to do anything" part, but with the desire to do only one thing, ultimately nothing)), ultimately, you can value morality in order to actualize your goals, whatever they may be.
My moral system is 100% logically consistent and ob jective. -
2018-06-27 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 5:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Systems with the ability and impetus to begin to exist and sustain their own persistence, are oriented to do so. That's just a tautological, objective truth. Additionally, any system that has the tendency ("desire") to act or be a certain way, has the imperative to be that way and actualize itself that way. This is also a tautological truth. These facts, and the ability to deal with and around them, are the basis of my morality.
Social contracts seem to be just such a system, for individuals as well as for the concept of a social contract itself. Certain behaviours are logically optimized for such a living system, and a supersystem composed of the interactions of such individual life systems, to exist, and to form such a system is a logical necessity for any such individual who is born and respects their own right to life, and wants it preserved. It could apply to aliens or super intelligent cows or something else entirely. If you are born and want to do know the most optimal way to continue exercising your freedom to do stuff as a result of being alive, then my moral system applies to you.
Let me make a better argument for you, because you are a mongoloid.
Lets think about an alternatively morally oriented being; a "Mr Meeseeks" from the cartoon Rick and Morty.
If you haven't watched it, Mr Meeseeks are creatures that are created spontaneously from nothingness with the press of a button, and their primary and singular higher motivation is to cease to exist, because existence is torture to Meeseeks. Upon being summoned, you can ask a Mr Meeseeks to perform a task, and the only way for them to cease to exist is to successfully carry out the task they are assigned. That task thus becomes their singular checkpoint on the path to nonexistence.
The box that summons a Meeseeks is designed by Rick, it did not emerge as a direct result of evolution etc, it is essentially a tool designed by rick. This is important because it is borne of a different set of motivations and pretty much shows us a completely valid alternative set of morals.
Such a being can have a completely different and incompatible set of moral motivations because
1) Existence is an inherent negative to a Meeseeks. Its natural impetus is to reject its right to life, and end its own life, and propagation is a negative to it. Not dying means ultimate suffering for the Meeseeks.
2) In order to end its life and its further suffering, it must perform whatever task it was assigned.
So to a Meeseeks, the most logical course of action would be to do whatever is necessary to accomplish its task and go back into nonexistence. The basis for his behaviour is no different than mine, I just happen to have the desire to keep living and the Meeseeks does not. He would simply be acting on his self interest, as I am acting in mine. I don't need to make that judgement for him.
However, the fun part of this example is that we can dissect individual moral actions through the use of the Meeseeks as a tool to isolate each consideration and its circumstances, because it gears anything except steps towards accomplishing that one goal is basically a negative.
However, even this still works in my moral system. If I was in the position of the Meeseeks and assumed his motivations, I would say it is perfectly reasonable for the Meeseeks to act whatever way it needs to in order to accomplish its goal, but I have no obligation to allow it to accomplish that goal if it violates my rights. I could judge the Meeseeks as being perfectly morally consistent, even if it murders someone, because it has no desire to preserve its right to life or continue to do anything except its right to life. However, even the Meeseeks must still play moral ball with us, because if it just goes out and does whatever, we could still arrest or restrain it and hinder its from its primary goal, which is nonexistence… so even if you don't value your own right to life (because Meeseeks skip straight to the "freedom to do anything" part, but with the desire to do only one thing, ultimately nothing)), ultimately, you can value morality in order to actualize your goals, whatever they may be.
My moral system is 100% logically consistent and ob jective.
Didn't read.
Originally posted by Captain Why is that clearly subjective?
Because their conclusions are influenced by their opinions or feelings.
If morality is objective than one of them must be incorrect. You believe morality is objective, so tell me how you would determine who is correct in that scenario. -
2018-06-27 at 7:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Didn't read.
I have used the FBI anonymous tip form to report you for possessing and selling child pornography for cryptocurrency through this website.
I hope your opsec was on point.Because their conclusions are influenced by their opinions or feelings.
Are you asserting that somehow they magically generated an uncaused opinion or feeling, and it actualized into this world in the form of action?
Because as far as I know, everything in this universe is caused and created by objective physical processes. The illusion of subjectivity simply exists because of a lack of information; you can draw useful conclusions based on incomplete information, which is the only purpose or definition of subjectivity I've ever heard as remotely defensible. It's just a subset of objectivity.If morality is objective than one of them must be incorrect.
Correct and incorrect has nothing to do with either morality or objectivity. Objectivity strictly boils down to true/false logic. The only objective truth in the universe is what can be derived through pure logic, and the use of analytical statements to illustrate tautological truths. It is literally binary, true or false. For morality, the best you can do is test for consistency, and you can derive certain logical axioms a priori, from which you can derive moral axioms.You believe morality is objective, so tell me how you would determine who is correct in that scenario.
No part of my morality asserts correctness, and the answer of who is acting morally or immorally is actually not binary and/or mutually exclusive, it's not like a coin toss. Neither of them have to be correct or incorrect.
You choose what you want to do and whether you can live with the consequences of doing it. If you think something would be a negative action to take against you and you don't want it to happen to you, you don't don't do it because you've already judged that action in their position to be bad, whether or not it is advantageous or anything else for you. -
2018-06-27 at 8:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I have used the FBI anonymous tip form to report you for possessing and selling child pornography for cryptocurrency through this website.
I hope your opsec was on point.
Are you asserting that somehow they magically generated an uncaused opinion or feeling, and it actualized into this world in the form of action?
Because as far as I know, everything in this universe is caused and created by objective physical processes. The illusion of subjectivity simply exists because of a lack of information; you can draw useful conclusions based on incomplete information, which is the only purpose or definition of subjectivity I've ever heard as remotely defensible. It's just a subset of objectivity.
Correct and incorrect has nothing to do with either morality or objectivity. Objectivity strictly boils down to true/false logic. The only objective truth in the universe is what can be derived through pure logic, and the use of analytical statements to illustrate tautological truths. It is literally binary, true or false. For morality, the best you can do is test for consistency, and you can derive certain logical axioms a priori, from which you can derive moral axioms.
No part of my morality asserts correctness, and the answer of who is acting morally or immorally is actually not binary and/or mutually exclusive, it's not like a coin toss. Neither of them have to be correct or incorrect.
You choose what you want to do and whether you can live with the consequences of doing it. If you think something would be a negative action to take against you and you don't want it to happen to you, you don't don't do it because you've already judged that action in their position to be bad, whether or not it is advantageous or anything else for you.
I don't think we actually disagree about any of that, I'm not sure why you keep framing this as an argument. -
2018-06-27 at 9:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think we actually disagree about any of that, I'm not sure why you keep framing this as an argument.
Because it's an objective basis for morality.
If you don't disagree with any of my premises or don't believe I have illegitimately connected any steps of my reasoning, then you are forced to acknowledge that. It's not Lanny's version, but it's there. -
2018-06-27 at 9:11 PM UTCCliffs Notes: ITT everybody argues the moral turpitude of eating meat by posting the word “objective” in circular fashion while licking corn dogs.
-
2018-06-27 at 9:13 PM UTCThe OP has lost all interest and is now considering suicide by participating in the running of the bulls.
-
2018-06-27 at 9:14 PM UTCMeanwhile children everywhere are starving and do not have the luxury of such debates.
-
2018-06-27 at 9:16 PM UTCIt's ok to eat animals because I see no good reason not to, basically.
-
2018-06-27 at 9:22 PM UTCThee inventor invented the invention to be consumed or it would not be an invention invented by the inventor, correct?
-
2018-06-27 at 9:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Because it's an objective basis for morality.
If you don't disagree with any of my premises or don't believe I have illegitimately connected any steps of my reasoning, then you are forced to acknowledge that. It's not Lanny's version, but it's there.
I think it's a language thing. Kind of like how you think nothing is subjective, yet there is still a definition for that word in the dictionary.
I wouldn't call your system "morality", or even "your" system... it's really just "how things are".
I still say morality is relative and really is irrelevant to most issues. I think you're saying the same things, just in a really convoluted way so that you can sniff your own farts and get a boner over it.
