User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-21 at 8:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
How would you support a claim like "the grander the truth, the simpler the language required to convey it" if the only truths you would seem to have access to are those that only require simple language to convey?
because truths are simple. things that are not simple are not truths. -
2018-09-21 at 9:40 PM UTC
-
2018-09-22 at 2:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't think anyone has seriously said anything about "justly forcing moral pressure on another". I certainly haven't. So I'm not sure why you bring the subject up.
Is that not how laws are enacted? Through moral pressure? There are laws saying penguins cannot be killed because killing penguins is considered morally wrong. Therfor, penguin meat cannot be ingested unless she's already dead.It's no more reasonable to say "feeling must enter the equation when formulating morality" than it is to say "feelings must enter the equation when formulating the scientific method". Like sure, we all have emotional states and both scientific institutions and moral systems are created by people, but this certainly isn't grounds for dismissal of those things.
Scientific theory/math cannot be felt, and moral goodness cannot be expressed in a universal language BECOSE the definition of "morally good" is subjective, as I have explained before. If it is defined as well-being, or comfort, or pleasure, or what have you. Those feelings cannot be expressed in a universal language that others can fully understand, such as mathematical units. Remember: feelings cannot be experienced by someone else, or fully expressed TO someone else.
You feel me? :)Why isn't morality "calculable"? There's a fair amount of literature on "hedonic calculus" in the utilitarian tradition, a good deal of it is even empirical in nature.
Here is the deal-
I actually think everything about us may very well may be calculable in theory, but it is impossible to computate the positioning of every quark at every point in spacetime from the beginning of time (which probably doesn't even exist as we tend to think of it). The butterfly Effect. If one quark is in a different place at any time, the results change everything forever.
This combined with computing every molecule of your genes and when and where you were when things happened makes this inherently incomputable. Even if we traveled to the probably not existant start of time and measured everything, the fact that we traveled backwards would change everything in a different way. And so on and sofourth.
Now, if you believe that conciousness is something other than atoms and quarks doing their respective things, then morality is truly incalcuable. There is an exception if your assumption is that one of the religions is true, which as far as I know is unprovable.Why do you think that's the basis for morality? I've presented both Kant and divine command theorists that make no reference to feelings in their formulation of morality. To Kant determining moral action is a purely logical practice
Because the logic used to reach his conclusions is all well and whatnot except Goodness, the subject of his premise, cannot be defined without utilizing feelings.
Let me go further-
Is causing physical pain to someone else morally wrong?
Why?
Define what physical pain is in a world where feelings don't exist, and nobody has any nerve cells or pain receptors.
Now ask your cousin Ceelo Greene what physical pain feels like. Are your answers EXACTLY the same ?
Now ask Ceelo Greene what 2*4 is. What is his answer? What do you think 2*4 is? If you asked 100 college graduates what 2*4 is, would you get exactly the same answer every time?
What if you brought them into a confession boothe and asked each one in private what physical pain feels like? Are all of their answers exactly the same this time?Ok, I won't pretend like ethics is a solved problem and I have a knockdown argument that's the be all end all of moral reasoning. But we can at least agree that moral propositions have truth values, yeah? Like maybe we don't have perfected tools for determining if a given action is moral or not, in the same way we don't yet have perfect tools for determining which regions of brains are responsible for a given cognitive function yet, but just like we can say "the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for executive function" is either right or wrong and investigation may yield a more certain answer, can we agree that moral propositions like "it's wrong to eat meat" are either true or false and that it's at least conceivable that we could discover the fact of the matter? Like maybe god comes down and just says "look bitches, eat whatever you want, it's all good" or something, at least the possibility exists that we might learn the fact of the matter on moral issues, yeah?
I can't say for certain either way, much as I can't prove or disprove religion. It's possible.My point here is simply that the notion of "measurement" is not native to first order logic, or most "pure" logics. Many useful propositions like "sticking your hand into a fire will hurt" aren't really about measurement at all, so if you're trying to say "we can't know anything about morality because we can't measure it" poses an issue because a great many things you'd probably agree with are difficult or impossible to measure.
Feelings Unfeelable by Others--->Definitions of Goodness & Baddness ----> Moral Foundation Set-----> Formation of Moral Rules ------> Laws Based on Morality---> Laws Enforced---> Sentencing based on Laws----> Fine/Imprisonment/Death Based on Law ViolatedWell again, I pointed out some examples of ethical systems which are not founded on feelings earlier.
Kant doesn't explicitly acknowledge that feelings influence his decision making processes, the way he thinks, and why he thinks the way he does, but would you think about eating food if you had never hungered before? Would you think about morality if you had no feelings whatsoever?
I believe if you had no feelings, you wouldn't care because there would be nothing to motivate you to move, to think, to experience anything. I don't think you would be alive either, as feelings tell you what you need to do in order to survive. I suspect everything that is alive must "feel" something.
So how would you define good and bad if you had no feelings? What then would be an example of good?
If you can prove canon to me, please do so. Seriously, it would make whatever This is a lot easier to digest. Since the evidence I've seen so far cannot convince me that religions or deities exist, I cannot affirm canon as a true source of rules uninfluenced by feelings of the people who wrote said canon. I can't disprove it either, but given the lack of hard evidence I'm not capable of forcing myself to believe in something that I rationally don't think is true. -
2018-09-22 at 9:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Is that not how laws are enacted? Through moral pressure? There are laws saying penguins cannot be killed because killing penguins is considered morally wrong. Therfor, penguin meat cannot be ingested unless she's already dead.
Well again, this thread isn't about the legal status of eating meat. It's true a good deal of our legal code is based, in some sense, on a moral intuition. But many moral principles which most people hold are not legally enforced. Most people probably hold that things like civility or compassion are morally good but these things generally aren't enshrined in law. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that we have a moral imperative to do something while denying the validity of legal enforcement of it.Scientific theory/math cannot be felt, and moral goodness cannot be expressed in a universal language BECOSE the definition of "morally good" is subjective, as I have explained before. If it is defined as well-being, or comfort, or pleasure, or what have you. Those feelings cannot be expressed in a universal language that others can fully understand, such as mathematical units. Remember: feelings cannot be experienced by someone else, or fully expressed TO someone else.
You feel me? :)
This is only ever anything even close to an issue for some kinds of utilitarian, those who believe the moral good is maximizing some kind of quality, usually "well being" or "pleasure". So you can argue that the thing being optimized is subjective, and maybe that poses a problem (although I have to admit I'm not really convinced it's a death knell) but it poses no problem at all to Kantian deontologists who hold that moral action is synonymous with acting according to a generalized maxim. To them feelings and subjective experiences don't factor in at all.Here is the deal-
I actually think everything about us may very well may be calculable in theory, but it is impossible to computate the positioning of every quark at every point in spacetime from the beginning of time (which probably doesn't even exist as we tend to think of it). The butterfly Effect. If one quark is in a different place at any time, the results change everything forever.
This combined with computing every molecule of your genes and when and where you were when things happened makes this inherently incomputable. Even if we traveled to the probably not existant start of time and measured everything, the fact that we traveled backwards would change everything in a different way. And so on and sofourth.
Now, if you believe that conciousness is something other than atoms and quarks doing their respective things, then morality is truly incalcuable. There is an exception if your assumption is that one of the religions is true, which as far as I know is unprovable.
So I want to respond to this in defense of utilitarianism, but please treat it as separate from the above point about Kantian deontology. Specifically even if you think what I say here is simply laughable, please respond to the above point independently since even if I fail miserably on this point, it doesn't change the fact that different moral systems don't suffer the same problem.
So the utilitarian response here is that sure, we probably will never come up with a precise calculus of our hedonic lives. We'll never be able to say for sure if eggs nova or eggs benedict is the superior brunch item. But it seems pretty reasonable to say something like "the suffering I'll endure by not being able to play games on the latest $500 console is significantly less than the suffering that can be spared by preventing blindness in a man with cataracts through surgical intervention at the same cost". This is pretty close to a real case. Like I can't precisely quantify how much more not being able to see sucks dick relative to not being able to play some videogames but I think it's obvious there's a significant difference between the two. And that's all that's needed for a moral theory. I don't need to be able to answer every conceivable question about "which is better" or "which is the lesser evil" to have a working, actionable moral theory. I'm wholly content to say some moral questions about what subjective experience better maximizes well being are difficult or impossible to answer. But as long as I can find cases where it's really pretty obvious what course of action causes greater or lesser human well being, and we accept the basic utilitarian premise, we can make as close to objective moral call as we can make conclusions from empirical evidence. That is to say perhaps not deductive formally provable truths but rather inductive evidence based conclusions from our experience and available evidence.Because the logic used to reach his conclusions is all well and whatnot except Goodness, the subject of his premise, cannot be defined without utilizing feelings.
Are you familiar with Kant's ethics? Where exactly do you think he treats "goodness" and where do you think he utilizes "feelings" in doing so?I can't say for certain either way, much as I can't prove or disprove religion. It's possible.
So you agree it's possible that some moral claims are true? That is to say it may be the case that all moral claims are false, but when we consider some moral statement like "it's wrong to kill human beings", that statement has meaning and it's either true or false. If so we're on the same page, morality is "objective" in the sense that it's either true or not, and maybe none of it is, but at least we're talking we understand statement like "it's wrong to eat meat" to mean the same thing, even if we have different ideas about whether we can know if the statement is true or not, or if the statement actually is true or not.Feelings Unfeelable by Others—>Definitions of Goodness & Baddness —-> Moral Foundation Set—–> Formation of Moral Rules ——> Laws Based on Morality—> Laws Enforced—> Sentencing based on Laws—-> Fine/Imprisonment/Death Based on Law Violated
I don't really understand how this is related to the section of my post you quoted.Kant doesn't explicitly acknowledge that feelings influence his decision making processes, the way he thinks, and why he thinks the way he does, but would you think about eating food if you had never hungered before? Would you think about morality if you had no feelings whatsoever?
Of course "feelings" were a very real part of Kant's experience and something that shaped his behavior, as is the case for all moral theorists and for all humans. As is the case for every scientist and mathematician who ever contributed to their respective field. But if you think we can overcome the emotional biases that are inherent to the human condition sufficiently to facilitate scientific discovery untainted by "feeling" then I see no reason to think we can't formulate a moral system independent of emotion.If you can prove canon to me, please do so. Seriously, it would make whatever This is a lot easier to digest. Since the evidence I've seen so far cannot convince me that religions or deities exist, I cannot affirm canon as a true source of rules uninfluenced by feelings of the people who wrote said canon. I can't disprove it either, but given the lack of hard evidence I'm not capable of forcing myself to believe in something that I rationally don't think is true.
Well I've never actually been convinced of divine command theory myself. I agree that sufficiently sophisticated formulations are quite robust and resist conclusive dismissal, they can't be "disproven", only driven to seemingly implausible corners. But the point I was trying to make by brining it up is not that morality is that which God (or your preferred flavor of divinity) commands. Simply that ethical statements are more than statements of subjective opinion. In the case of divine command theorists moral statements are statements about the canon, they have truth values and a pretty obvious resolution strategy that seems fairly objective, at least objective on a similar level to the empirical sciences. You don't have to accept the premise that that which is good is what the canon says is good, but you do seem to have to admit that if a thing is good or not on many divine command models of morality is not simply a subjective expression of opinion.
-
2018-09-22 at 11:57 AM UTC
-
2018-09-22 at 2:55 PM UTC
-
2018-09-22 at 4:11 PM UTC
-
2018-09-23 at 4:22 PM UTC
-
2018-09-23 at 5:14 PM UTCJMT is a guilty pleasure of mine. The production is kinda brain dead and pop-y, at least relative to the way people act like it's some amazing thing. The vocal delivery is pretty distinctive and I really like it, it just gets ruined by really cringey lyrics sometimes. There's a lot of moralizing, and even if I agree with the point I've always thought using music to try and push some political or moral opinion, especially in a super obvious way like trying to put a moral argument into a rhyme structure, is a huge turn off. Sure, social commentary has always been a function of art, but I can't help but feel like this particular flavor of commentary carries the implicit assertion that like "no, you're not smart enough to form an opinion by looking at evidence of a long form argument, you need a cheap beat and catchy lyrics in order to appreciate what I'm saying".
-
2018-09-23 at 5:51 PM UTCJust enjoy the music if you like it, braj. I don't think that Vinny Paz regards himself as a (morally) superior being and the people he speaks to are usually not scholars. The production is pretty outstanding compared to other rap music. I couldn't make those beats. Not saying that it's God's gift to music, though.
-
2018-09-24 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So the utilitarian response here is that sure, we probably will never come up with a precise calculus of our hedonic lives. We'll never be able to say for sure if eggs nova or eggs benedict is the superior brunch item. But it seems pretty reasonable to say something like "the suffering I'll endure by not being able to play games on the latest $500 console is significantly less than the suffering that can be spared by preventing blindness in a man with cataracts through surgical intervention at the same cost". This is pretty close to a real case. Like I can't precisely quantify how much more not being able to see sucks dick relative to not being able to play some videogames but I think it's obvious there's a significant difference between the two. And that's all that's needed for a moral theory. I don't need to be able to answer every conceivable question about "which is better" or "which is the lesser evil" to have a working, actionable moral theory. I'm wholly content to say some moral questions about what subjective experience better maximizes well being are difficult or impossible to answer. But as long as I can find cases where it's really pretty obvious what course of action causes greater or lesser human well being, and we accept the basic utilitarian premise, we can make as close to objective moral call as we can make conclusions from empirical evidence. That is to say perhaps not deductive formally provable truths but rather inductive evidence based conclusions from our experience and available evidence.
You are assuming that you are right based on a subjective assessment of the situation which was concocted using your feelings. As I have explained, feelings are not suitable grounds to establish a system of rules set as truths/facts.
A blanket moral imperative implies that you are in the correctness because your feelings told you that you shoukd behave a certain way. You cannot assume that my feelings will cause me to behave the same way as you. In all liklihood, my feelings will cause me to behave differently than you (on a sliding scale to infinity) because I am compositionally differently than you.
This is other problen with "moral "truths". What they are referring to can always be more specific, just as the definitions of good and bad can always be more specific and unique to each case (case being the individual people who define them).
I.E. "This guy will die if I don't help him!"
"Yeah, but he's wearing a suicide vest."
**
Perhaps the cataracted man you mentioned stared at the sun for five minutes because he wanted to blind himself. Should one be expected to give him money to fix his eyes?
Instead of putting a blanket moral imperative on how wealth must be distributed, the situation could be let to play out naturally. In the course of nature you will see the cataracted man is in need, and decide to donate some of your simoleons, or you will decide that he is not worthy of your simoleons and you will spend the money on other things you consider to be of more importance. This reminds me eerily of my altruism posts, which state that one can "always be more altruistic" to which there is no end, and no end to excuses if one chooses to tap into that faucet of "partial altruism".Are you familiar with Kant's ethics? Where exactly do you think he treats "goodness" and where do you think he utilizes "feelings" in doing so?
My diagram showed how anyone (including Kant) forms a system of morality. They do not necessarily consider their feelings consciously, but feelings are what necessitate the desire for a system of morality irregardless of the type of system. It is impossible to formulate morality without the influence of feelings, purposely or not.So you agree it's possible that some moral claims are true? That is to say it may be the case that all moral claims are false, but when we consider some moral statement like "it's wrong to kill human beings", that statement has meaning and it's either true or false. If so we're on the same page, morality is "objective" in the sense that it's either true or not, and maybe none of it is, but at least we're talking we understand statement like "it's wrong to eat meat" to mean the same thing, even if we have different ideas about whether we can know if the statement is true or not, or if the statement actually is true or not.
I cannot prove or disprove the concept of "moral truths". However, when something cannot be proven, I do not believe that rules and laws founded on these unproveable premises should be accepted as facts. They are not.
**
Personally, if something cannot be proven to me, I don't accept it unless there is compelling enough evidence to sway me even though there is not irrefutable proof. Morality has not given me enough proof of its existence for me to believe it is real. Morality's inexistence is also too inevidential to me.
**
Perhaps the fancy of the time is that those who eat of the boiled hog are immoral and worthy of death. However, 2+2=4 is not subject to the popular opinion's flavour of the week. It is the same as it always was.
Morality (what is good and bad) changes constantly, and the rules are free flowing. They are not facts, as they change at the whimsy of popular opinion. Popular opinion is just that; opinion. Whether morality itself exists is an opinion. Whether it is right to eat meat is an opinion. To consider it a moral truth requires a leap of faith.
To consider anything a moral truth requires a leap of faith, as it is unknowable with the evidence I have witnessed. Laws and punishment should not be enacted based on leaps of faith. If you choose to believe that they should, then you enter the scope of public opinion & morality, and you therefor subject yourself to the chainchomp of morality and its rules.
If one does not accept the premise of morality, then the expectation for that person to abide by the rules of a system they reject is illogical. The only way to expect such a person to comply with such a system is by the percieved threat of the barrel of a gun.
You didn't mention the ramifications of acting immorally in a moral society, but I'm explaining my thought processeses for you and those who read thread this to understand why it's important that I do so.I don't really understand how this is related to the section of my post you quoted.
Yeah, that made more sense in a different spot. My pain perception example inb4 paragraph made more sense regarding your hand in the fire example.Of course "feelings" were a very real part of Kant's experience and something that shaped his behavior, as is the case for all moral theorists and for all humans. As is the case for every scientist and mathematician who ever contributed to their respective field. But if you think we can overcome the emotional biases that are inherent to the human condition sufficiently to facilitate scientific discovery untainted by "feeling" then I see no reason to think we can't formulate a moral system independent of emotion.
THIS is exactly the question my chart addresses.
Feelings Unfeelable by Others—>Definitions of Goodness & Baddness —-> Moral Foundation Set—–> Formation of Moral Rules ——> Laws Based on Morality—> Laws Enforced—> Sentencing based on Laws—-> Fine/Imprisonment/Death Based on Law Violatedbut you do seem to have to admit that if a thing is good or not on many divine command models of morality is not simply a subjective expression of opinion.
That is an interesting idea. Sincerely.
However, peradventure a man in his journey through life performs many activities unto others that are seen as outstanding and noteworthy. Peradventure this man has decided that the olde world popular opinion based moral system is inherently wrong. Peradventure this man has knowledge of an entirely new moral sytem system that he chooses to live his life by. Peradventure this man holds many moral positions that the general populace holds as vastly immoral. Peradventure they kill him for it. Peradventure this man's name is Jesus. Peradventure Jesus would shift the global popluar opinion of him from death wishes to the most worshipped man to ever walk the earth.
This is why I do not "seem to need to agree", as you put it, with the popular opinion, morality system, or religion. Something of this capacity (not necessarily with religion) will in all likelihood continue to happen over and over again throughout human history. -
2018-09-24 at 4 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano You are assuming that you are right based on a subjective assessment of the situation which was concocted using your feelings. As I have explained, feelings are not suitable grounds to establish a system of rules set as truths/facts.
I don't think I'm assuming that, can you please point to where I'm making that assumption?Perhaps the cataracted man you mentioned stared at the sun for five minutes because he wanted to blind himself. Should one be expected to give him money to fix his eyes?
If your asking what the utilitarian response to that situation is we have to understand the difference between hedonic utilitarians and preference utilitarians, and probably act utilitarians and rule utilitarians.
But I think what you're trying to say is that utilitarians are somehow committed to trying to forcefully try to cure a man who's blind, which is just wrong, that's not how it works. The moral imperative is to maximize utility, not to cure every blind person no matter what.My diagram showed how anyone (including Kant) forms a system of morality. They do not necessarily consider their feelings consciously, but feelings are what necessitate the desire for a system of morality irregardless of the type of system. It is impossible to formulate morality without the influence of feelings, purposely or not.
What diagram?
The fact that we have emotional motivations for finding a system of morality is not an indictment of those systems of morality. Scientists have feelings too. The main reason we do science at all is the feeling scientists have that they want to collect a paycheck and society's feeling that they want to enjoy the productive outputs of science. But even nobler reasons like curiosity or a love of truth are still just feeling people have that causes them to practice science. But you don't think this is a condmenation of science to mere opinion, since it would never be done without the influence of feelings, purposefully or not?I cannot prove or disprove the concept of "moral truths". However, when something cannot be proven, I do not believe that rules and laws founded on these unproveable premises should be accepted as facts. They are not.
…
Perhaps the fancy of the time is that those who eat of the boiled hog are immoral and worthy of death. However, 2+2=4 is not subject to the popular opinion's flavour of the week. It is the same as it always was.
Morality (what is good and bad) changes constantly, and the rules are free flowing. They are not facts, as they change at the whimsy of popular opinion. Popular opinion is just that; opinion. Whether morality itself exists is an opinion. Whether it is right to eat meat is an opinion. To consider it a moral truth requires a leap of faith.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say moral truths are unprovable, and you've seen no evidence for them. Then you say moral truths are simply a matter of popular opinion, which surely you've seen quite a bit of evidence for. So which is it?
To be clear, when I say moral truth I'm not talking about popular opinion. I'm taking about facts about what ought to be and which is not contingent public opinion. If you thought by "moral truth" I mean "what people of the day think is the moral truth" then you've gravely misunderstood what I've been saying.You didn't mention the ramifications of acting immorally in a moral society
You're right, and I've said little about society at all. I've made no real mention of laws or "morality enforcement". Laws and the effects of laws on our society are very important of course, but they have little to do with moral premises like "it's wrong to eat meat". It's entirely reasonable to hold radically different views on questions like "is it wrong to eat meat?" vs. "should we punish people who eat meat?".This is why I do not "seem to need to agree", as you put it, with the popular opinion, morality system, or religion. Something of this capacity (not necessarily with religion) will in all likelihood continue to happen over and over again throughout human history.
Of course! Please don't think that because I've argued that there are true moral facts that I'm somehow arguing that the vague folk morality that our society enshrines in law or that christian morality is correct. I have a long list of grievances with the moral beliefs widely held by members of our society and prescribed by religious institutions. One such gripe is the belief in our society that it's acceptable to treat animals in whatever way is most expedient and to have no concern for the well being of non-human animals. It's undeniable that most americans hold the moral belief that the meat industry and its practices are morally acceptable and there's like a hundred pages of this thread in which I'm arguing that the popular opinion there is squarely wrong.
-
2018-09-24 at 11:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
I don't think I'm assuming that, can you please point to where I'm making that assumption?
If your asking what the utilitarian response to that situation is we have to understand the difference between hedonic utilitarians and preference utilitarians, and probably act utilitarians and rule utilitarians.
But I think what you're trying to say is that utilitarians are somehow committed to trying to forcefully try to cure a man who's blind, which is just wrong, that's not how it works. The moral imperative is to maximize utility, not to cure every blind person no matter what.
What diagram?
The fact that we have emotional motivations for finding a system of morality is not an indictment of those systems of morality. Scientists have feelings too. The main reason we do science at all is the feeling scientists have that they want to collect a paycheck and society's feeling that they want to enjoy the productive outputs of science. But even nobler reasons like curiosity or a love of truth are still just feeling people have that causes them to practice science. But you don't think this is a condmenation of science to mere opinion, since it would never be done without the influence of feelings, purposefully or not?
You're contradicting yourself. First you say moral truths are unprovable, and you've seen no evidence for them. Then you say moral truths are simply a matter of popular opinion, which surely you've seen quite a bit of evidence for. So which is it?
To be clear, when I say moral truth I'm not talking about popular opinion. I'm taking about facts about what ought to be and which is not contingent public opinion. If you thought by "moral truth" I mean "what people of the day think is the moral truth" then you've gravely misunderstood what I've been saying.
You're right, and I've said little about society at all. I've made no real mention of laws or "morality enforcement". Laws and the effects of laws on our society are very important of course, but they have little to do with moral premises like "it's wrong to eat meat". It's entirely reasonable to hold radically different views on questions like "is it wrong to eat meat?" vs. "should we punish people who eat meat?".
Of course! Please don't think that because I've argued that there are true moral facts that I'm somehow arguing that the vague folk morality that our society enshrines in law or that christian morality is correct. I have a long list of grievances with the moral beliefs widely held by members of our society and prescribed by religious institutions. One such gripe is the belief in our society that it's acceptable to treat animals in whatever way is most expedient and to have no concern for the well being of non-human animals. It's undeniable that most americans hold the moral belief that the meat industry and its practices are morally acceptable and there's like a hundred pages of this thread in which I'm arguing that the popular opinion there is squarely wrong.
How can opinions about "how the world should be" be true or false? I could understand statements about "How the world is" being true or false because the world either is or isn't the way it actually is. But I don't believe there is a true "way the world should be", there are just a variety of ways different people imagine it should be. None of them are true or false, they are just imagined. -
2018-09-24 at 2:34 PM UTC
I don't think I'm assuming that, can you please point to where I'm making that assumption?
"But it seems pretty reasonable to say something like "the suffering I'll endure by not being able to play games on the latest $500 console is significantly less than the suffering that can be spared by preventing blindness in a man with cataracts through surgical intervention at the same cost"
"It seems pretty reasonable" is contradictory. You are relying on your intuition and have broken the chain of logic. Why does it seem reasonable? Can you prove your answer?
But I think what you're trying to say is that utilitarians are somehow committed to trying to forcefully try to cure a man who's blind, which is just wrong, that's not how it works. The moral imperative is to maximize utility, not to cure every blind person no matter what.
How do you know which choice will maximize utility? How do you define utility? How is your definition of utility any less subjective than morally good or morally bad? My definition of utility will be different from yours, which is the reason for so many different kinds of utilitarians. They group themselves as closely as they can, but all of them have different interpretations. There is only one answer for 2+2=4 because it is a universal truth, unlike morality or utility, which are subjective.
Define utility. Is it usefulness? What is useful? Can we all agree on what is useful? What is most useful to me is not necessarily most useful to you, therfor a universal truth that supercedes any one human is necessary. Where is this truth found? A utililitarian truth is required. Where is this ultilitarian truth located? In canon? I have said that canon is does not have enough evidence to prove itself, and cannot be expected for one to accept as fact.What diagram?
Feelings Unfeelable by Others—>Definitions of Goodness & Baddness —-> Moral Foundation Set—–> Formation of Moral Rules ——> Laws Based on Morality—> Laws Enforced—> Sentencing based on Laws—-> Fine/Imprisonment/Death Based on Law ViolatedBut you don't think this is a condmenation of science to mere opinion, since it would never be done without the influence of feelings, purposefully or not?
No.You're contradicting yourself. First you say moral truths are unprovable, and you've seen no evidence for them. Then you say moral truths are simply a matter of popular opinion, which surely you've seen quite a bit of evidence for. So which is it?
To be clear, when I say moral truth I'm not talking about popular opinion. I'm taking about facts about what ought to be and which is not contingent public opinion. If you thought by "moral truth" I mean "what people of the day think is the moral truth" then you've gravely misunderstood what I've been saying.
I did not say morality is an opinion, I said whether or not it exists is an opinion. Morality either is or isn't. Moral truths are unprovable, as there's not enough evidence to prove or disprove them. Like morality, they either are or are not existant. This is consistent with what I said.
**
I know what you mean by moral truth. I said the popular opinion is not necessarily consistent with a moral truth, if said truth exists.Laws and the effects of laws on our society are very important of course, but they have little to do with moral premises like "it's wrong to eat meat"
You have said yourself that laws are a moral construct. Certain animals cannot be eaten because the morally inspired laws forbid it. Assume it is immoral to eat meat: If at some point in time the percieved practical feasibility to stop eating meat outweighs the percieved cons, then I could forsee a law being made to correct the moral injustice. Law is infinitly variable, which is why lawyers and courtrooms and judges exist. Each case is unique, and things must be proven with evidence. The interpretation of the law is as infinite as the definitions of good and usefulness. Things are not actually proven in court, as the judge cannot go back in time and witness the event. Charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence. What is a reasonable doubt? Your reasonable doubt is different than my reasonable doubt. How do we determine who's reasonable doubt is the correcter? Popular opinion has historically been the answer.Of course! Please don't think that because I've argued that there are true moral facts that I'm somehow arguing that the vague folk morality that our society enshrines in law or that christian morality is correct. I have a long list of grievances with the moral beliefs widely held by members of our society and prescribed by religious institutions. One such gripe is the belief in our society that it's acceptable to treat animals in whatever way is most expedient and to have no concern for the well being of non-human animals. It's undeniable that most americans hold the moral belief that the meat industry and its practices are morally acceptable and there's like a hundred pages of this thread in which I'm arguing that the popular opinion there is squarely wrong.
Am I gathering that you believe moral truths can be deduced through reason?
As I have said ad nauseum, moral truths themselves cannot be proven to exist or not exist. How are you reasoning to an end that very well doesn't exist? It requires faith, which is not akin to reason.
Why are you living your life on a construct that very well may not exist? Why do you allow it to imprison you, instead of deciding for yourself what actions you would like to take irregardless of a force that very well is not there? Does it make you more comfortable?
When I say "I don't know what any of this is", that is fact.
What proof have you obtained through reason that offers you 100% certainty that moral truths exist?
Or is it that some of your proof is obtained through, perhaps, intuition?
STRYTSTORYSOTRYTIME!!:
I think that perhaps there IS a universal truth for every such instance that we will experience, in that every unique event for every unique circumstance WILL play out the way that it has to play out. A script. Morality is nonsensical as it is trying to establish order amidst infinite absurdity.
There isn't good, there isn't bad, there's infinite complexity. We crave complexity. We make stories about things because we can go as far into complexity as we want. Good is a story, bad is a story. Good+bad=more complexity. Good+bad+neutral=even more complexity.
We get really into it, because these stories are our babies. We pretend that they matter because nothing really does, unless we will it to matter. We get to decide what matters.
We want to be God or a servant. To make orders, or to take them.
Think of it like minecraft. There's no ultimate goal, you just make whatever you want, and it's funnest with either pre-set rules, or no rules in which are a flying god with everything you want at your disposal. You end up making it more and more complex because that's the only thing there is to do. You can even try to make your own virtual minecraft within minecraft, because that's very complex. Then you make minecraft within your virtual minecraft you made in minecraft, and suddenly the first virtual minecraft you made doesn't seem as complex any more.
This is the progression of things, as we are referential beings. We can only think in terms of reference. This is why we cannot envision the concepts of everything or nothing, because they require an absence of a reference point. We are unable to think without a point of reference.
***
The more we do the same thing, the less we are able to analyze it further. If you have seen a music video before you will unable to concerate very well on the same part, as your brain has seen it before and rejects analyzing the same thing twice. It must analyze less important areas and sounds of the video you may has missed before. If you see it enough times back to back, you will take just miniscule information from it, and will mostly trapped in your own mind with your thoughts. Many people are uncomfortable with being in their own mind, and must make or find more stimulation to drown it out. This is especially true for alcoholics or drug addicts, although likely not all of the are this way.
If we aren't adequately stimulated, we get tired. We sleep at night because dark isn't stimulating. Even when we are sleeping, our brain makes more stimulation via dreams. When we go for a long period of time without adequate stimulation, or something that prevents us from being properly stimulated such as pain preventing us from doing activites, and forcing a lowly stimulating repetitive thought loop, we start getting phone calls from death. If we get too many phone calls from the ultimate source of unstimulation, we kill ourselves and actualize unstimulation, or perhaps rolling the dice for a more stimulating existence.
Lying to oneself or others can be stimulating enough to keep one occupied, as you constantly thinking about more ways to lie to oneself or others. Malice was lying to himself in some capacity by convincing himself that one his chemical schemes might fix his mental issues. He had hope. Many of us, myself especially, helped him realize that this was but a pipe dream.
When Malice was blog posting about suicide, he left for a while, came back, and said he he didn't feel like killing himself for a little bit because he got back into Dark Souls. The stimulation temporarily git rid of the graveyard phone calls. He needed to engross himself in some kind of hobby or activity in order to not want to kill himself. Religion and morality are quite effective ways of keeping the phone calls away through the stimulation of conflict within one's mind between being a servant, or a god, or being unsure of existence. Malice did not have this conflict IIRC, and neither do I.
I think wanting to kill oneself is actually a natural reaction to certain circumstances, not an abnormal one. If our space rock dirt boi bodies are stimulated, we are given the impulses to continue to achieve and do things. If we don't, then the natural course of action is to get tired & sleep a lot & get depressed. If we continue down that path of the sliding scale, we may necessarily go to suicide.
(Balanced?? &/or [Wholesome???]) Stimulation<------------------------------->Seppekukaki
Tis' on a spectrum, such as auewksn. -
2018-09-24 at 2:58 PM UTCI smoked a brisket and 2 racks of baby backs yesterday 😍
Damn it was good -
2018-09-24 at 5:21 PM UTC
-
2018-09-24 at 5:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe How can opinions about "how the world should be" be true or false?
In the same way statements about how the world is can be true or false. How the world ought to be be is in fact a statement about how the world is.
Originally posted by DietPiano "It seems pretty reasonable" is contradictory. You are relying on your intuition and have broken the chain of logic. Why does it seem reasonable? Can you prove your answer?
I don't really see the contradiction. I can offer empirical evidence for that though, for example almost everyone would prioritize their sight over a video game console. I could conduct an experiment and blindfold myself for a week and go a week without video games and see which sucked more.
How do you know which choice will maximize utility?
We usually can't know with absolute certainty what will maximize utility but we can make informed decisions about it. We can't know with absolute certainty that a given medicine will cure a given patient, individuals are idiosyncratic, but that doesn't mean doctors should just reach into a drawer and grab a pill bottle at random, or that the medical practice is a hoax.My definition of utility will be different from yours, which is the reason for so many different kinds of utilitarians. They group themselves as closely as they can, but all of them have different interpretations. There is only one answer for 2+2=4 because it is a universal truth, unlike morality or utility, which are subjective.
Wether you hold the same definition of utility or not isn't particularly an issue, at least not any more than the possibility of us holding different definitions of "physical fitness" is an issue for the medical practice. People disagree on things all the time, the fact that people don't agree on something isn't an issue for the study of that thing.Define utility. Is it usefulness? What is useful? Can we all agree on what is useful? What is most useful to me is not necessarily most useful to you, therfor a universal truth that supercedes any one human is necessary. Where is this truth found? A utililitarian truth is required. Where is this ultilitarian truth located? In canon? I have said that canon is does not have enough evidence to prove itself, and cannot be expected for one to accept as fact.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. The classic definition of utility is absence of suffering or presence of pleasure. What if different things make us suffer or feel pleasure? What if I like chocolate ice cream and you like vanilla? Fine, not an issue. You get what you want and I get what I want and utility if maximized. The maxim is about utility, there is no need to try and formulate a universal policy on which is the "best" ice cream flavor.Feelings Unfeelable by Others—>Definitions of Goodness & Baddness —-> Moral Foundation Set—–> Formation of Moral Rules ——> Laws Based on Morality—> Laws Enforced—> Sentencing based on Laws—-> Fine/Imprisonment/Death Based on Law Violated
So what does this mean though? Are you saying each thing is an inescapable consequence of the one before it? If so I'm calling slippery slope.You have said yourself that laws are a moral construct.
Where have I said that? I think many of our laws are informed my our moral opinions but it seems pretty easy to imagine immoral laws, or laws in a society that doesn't have any moral opinions.Certain animals cannot be eaten because the morally inspired laws forbid it. Assume it is immoral to eat meat: If at some point in time the percieved practical feasibility to stop eating meat outweighs the percieved cons, then I could forsee a law being made to correct the moral injustice. Law is infinitly variable, which is why lawyers and courtrooms and judges exist. Each case is unique, and things must be proven with evidence. The interpretation of the law is as infinite as the definitions of good and usefulness. Things are not actually proven in court, as the judge cannot go back in time and witness the event. Charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence. What is a reasonable doubt? Your reasonable doubt is different than my reasonable doubt. How do we determine who's reasonable doubt is the correcter? Popular opinion has historically been the answer.
I guess my response here is so what? Is this supposed to be an argument against the assertion that eating meat is wrong? The fact that you can imagine some scenario where some laws are enacted and that the legal system isn't infallible doesn't seem to say anything at all about the moral status of eating meat.Am I gathering that you believe moral truths can be deduced through reason?
As I have said ad nauseum, moral truths themselves cannot be proven to exist or not exist. How are you reasoning to an end that very well doesn't exist? It requires faith, which is not akin to reason.
Why? For what reason to you believe that moral truths are unprovable? So far I've gotten "because no one's proved it to me", which I think you can see why that doesn't work, and "because moral systems are based on feelings" which I've shown a number of times either isn't the case or is a trivially true complaint that could be equally applied to the institution of science.What proof have you obtained through reason that offers you 100% certainty that moral truths exist?
What proof have you gained through reason that offers you 100% certainty that the earth is round, or that objects are composed of atoms? I'll answer for you: none. There's little to nothing that we know with 100% certainty, insisting on it for moral propositions is an atrocious double standard.
-
2018-09-24 at 6:04 PM UTCI love those butcher videos. My favorite is Tuna.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-24 at 6:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
In the same way statements about how the world is can be true or false. How the world ought to be be is in fact a statement about how the world is.
I don't really see the contradiction. I can offer empirical evidence for that though, for example almost everyone would prioritize their sight over a video game console. I could conduct an experiment and blindfold myself for a week and go a week without video games and see which sucked more.
We usually can't know with absolute certainty what will maximize utility but we can make informed decisions about it. We can't know with absolute certainty that a given medicine will cure a given patient, individuals are idiosyncratic, but that doesn't mean doctors should just reach into a drawer and grab a pill bottle at random, or that the medical practice is a hoax.
Wether you hold the same definition of utility or not isn't particularly an issue, at least not any more than the possibility of us holding different definitions of "physical fitness" is an issue for the medical practice. People disagree on things all the time, the fact that people don't agree on something isn't an issue for the study of that thing.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. The classic definition of utility is absence of suffering or presence of pleasure. What if different things make us suffer or feel pleasure? What if I like chocolate ice cream and you like vanilla? Fine, not an issue. You get what you want and I get what I want and utility if maximized. The maxim is about utility, there is no need to try and formulate a universal policy on which is the "best" ice cream flavor.
So what does this mean though? Are you saying each thing is an inescapable consequence of the one before it? If so I'm calling slippery slope.
Where have I said that? I think many of our laws are informed my our moral opinions but it seems pretty easy to imagine immoral laws, or laws in a society that doesn't have any moral opinions.
I guess my response here is so what? Is this supposed to be an argument against the assertion that eating meat is wrong? The fact that you can imagine some scenario where some laws are enacted and that the legal system isn't infallible doesn't seem to say anything at all about the moral status of eating meat.
Why? For what reason to you believe that moral truths are unprovable? So far I've gotten "because no one's proved it to me", which I think you can see why that doesn't work, and "because moral systems are based on feelings" which I've shown a number of times either isn't the case or is a trivially true complaint that could be equally applied to the institution of science.
What proof have you gained through reason that offers you 100% certainty that the earth is round, or that objects are composed of atoms? I'll answer for you: none. There's little to nothing that we know with 100% certainty, insisting on it for moral propositions is an atrocious double standard.
"The world is flat" is a statement that can be true or false... the world either is or is not flat.
"Meat eating is immoral" cannot be true or false. Individuals may have different opinions about what is or is not immoral but at no point do those opinions become true or false, there is no way the world should be, there is only the way the world is. -
2018-09-24 at 6:27 PM UTCWhatever we think we should do and whatever we do, none of it matters.
