User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-10-02 at 10:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano That's not what I said at all.
His reasoning structure post-premise is sound, but his premise is flawed, so none of his later reasoning matters.
Kant believes that things "ought" to be a certain way, in that things "matter". Things only "matter" if humans are somehow more specialer than other species. Kant was of that opinion.
Dude. Listen. Him being of that opinion has no relevance whatsoever to this his ethics, in specific. Kant's ethics have no supernatural premises, or appeals to divine command. The point of an axiomatic principle and system is to have some kind of agreeable axiom, and if you agree with the axiom, you agree with what follows. You can disregard or challenge the axiom itself if you like. But a good axiom is difficult to argue. Specially when it is constructed from an analytical truth, which is the closest thing to objective anything can get. Kant's ethics are built this way. You are making a retarded attempt at a dismissal, and fuck you bitch.It is most likely that none of this INHERENTLY matters. To assert that any of this DOES inherently matter requires hard evidence of such. Since no evidence of deities, higher force, or whathaveyou I have witnessed is convincing enough for me to have faith in, to believe in such deities, higher force, or whathaveyou, would be irrational.
I mean, nothing inherently matters at all. The idea is self contradictory and can be logically shown as incoherent. God doesn't solve the logical problem. The point isn't inherent meaning or mattering, really. It's just a matter of context.Since nothing inherently matters, the only things that matter are what we decide matter. What matters to you is the only thing that matters. That doesn't necessarily mean it matters to me, though, because my interpretation of what matters will be different from yours becoos of my different genetic structure, life experiences, and exact positioning in spacetime.
Since most of the evidence I have witnessed suggests that none of this probably matters, that is the rational conclusion I have come to. Could it matter? Sure, but that is much less likely given the differing sets of evidence I've witnessed.
This is what I've been trying to explain to Lanny, but he keeps bringing up Kant, insisting that that his premises are somehow based on universal truths/laws, which don't exist.
I feel like you don't really understand the value or powers of axioms.
Kant's axiom is essentially that if you value a "right", you must relinquish it's contradictory "anti" right because you can't have both guaranteed at the same time. For example your right to life and your right to kill somebody. At its base, this axiom traps and applies to any organism that begins to grow into viability, from all the way up the causal chain to the big bang. Any organism that does not want to be trapped logically in the system, it would have to choose to forfeit its right to life, and exit this and all other systems, and that too is in the system.
Like I said before, morality is an emergent network phenomenon. The consideration of other agents is baked into the concept (and is why animals are not morally considerable.) Either if you do not consider another agent or do not have another agent to consider, the results are the same: you are not acting morally or immorally, you are just acting. Whether you decide to eat a yoghurt from your fridge can be a choice, but there is no real moral weight attached to it. The concept is necessarily an emergent property, intrinsically woven from our existence as a society.
We don't know why we have all these agents called humans in a network called society, but they objectively exist: this is an empirical, observational, positive fact. Morality is just a game theory analysis of society. -
2018-10-02 at 12:10 PM UTCIf the system breaks down and the food stops shipping to grocery stores all you MJWs (moral justice warriors) will eat rats, bugs and anything else you can sink your teeth into including each other.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-02 at 7:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker If the system breaks down and the food stops shipping to grocery stores all you MJWs (moral justice warriors) will eat rats, bugs and anything else you can sink your teeth into including each other.
Ahh, tired non-argument that's already been addressed several times thread #47. A real classic in shitty broken reasoning.
-
2018-10-02 at 9:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
Ahh, tired non-argument that's already been addressed several times thread #47. A real classic in shitty broken reasoning.
All the words your bony little fingers can spew from a keyboard won't change the fact that you will toss your morals when they become a threat to your survival chump. -
2018-10-02 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin
Are you of the belief that everyone has their own independant moral system, in that it may be morally good for one person to eat meat, and morally bad for another?
If you agree that nothing inherently matters and that morality is just a human construct, than how is any of it universal in the slightest?
Define good and bad. Is it well being?
Define well-being.
Now compare your answers to mine.
They will be different answers becuose I am not you, I don't have your genetic makeup, and vice vers.
Good is subjective.
There is no objective subjective.
And does not living things always do what they percieve to be "good" for themselves? How do they intentionally act "badly", or selflessly?
Our definitions of good and bad are different. Therfor, our "morality" as you call it, which is a pointless concept that doesn't exist, would be individualized.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-02 at 11:41 PM UTCDoes anyone on this shit hole care about actual definitions of words or do you guys just pick your own definitions so you can be right in an internet argument. Just look up the words morals and ethics in the dictionary FFS.
-
2018-10-03 at 12:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker All the words your bony little fingers can spew from a keyboard won't change the fact that you will toss your morals when they become a threat to your survival chump.
Sorry, but the empty speculation of morally weak internet blowhards like you doesn't really bother me.
-
2018-10-03 at 1:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What do you think it would mean for "A=C on the billionth iteration"? Like how would the world where "A=A" being an eternal truth be different from the one where it wasn't?
I don't know. Like I said, it is inconceivable and impossible to me, it makes no sense, but we just assume that things make sense the way we think they do. Even my example, strictly speaking, is impossible But that only goes so far at guaranteeing that it's objectively "true"; there might be something fundamentally incorrect about the way we understand and reason about the world. Maybe this universe would appear perfectly normal but we'd detect a little bit of noise in one in a billion calculations.
Originally posted by Lanny Yes, I don't deny that artistic qualities of paintings are probably contingent on things like cultural opinions or "neurology" in some very reductive way. This doesn't seem to do much to establish a mathematical description of the artistic qualities of a paintings.
If we had really good generative art (I think there's some good generative art today!) we'd have a mechanistic process that produced something with artistic properties, yes. The generative process may be describable in mathematical terms. But describing the process that generates something with artistic properties is different than describing artistic properties, just as describing the physical properties of a thing is distinct from describing that things artistic properties.
Yes, I agree that questions about artistic qualities of things don't have answers like "this painting possesses 12 Pablos", which was my point to start with: not every fact about the world can be described mathematically. Maybe all substance can be described mathematically, but some emergent properties (like artistic properties) resist mathematical quantification. The project itself if ill conceived. We don't have to assign any mystical or supernatural qualities to art and such, I'm simply saying we can't describe it fully in mathematical terms.
I think we are talking past each other a little. What I'm saying is that that the real difficulty of finding the artistic value of a painting lies in defining the problem you are solving for: what is artistic value?
JIn the second quote, I'm not referring to generative art, I'm referring to something that might be able to calculate what you value artistically. For example, YouTube or Netflix suggestion algorithms.
Imagine that I make a perfect suggestion model for Lanny based on your own definition of artistic value, it can literally be anything: your "play next" list is always perfect for you, and you can do a double blind test where you ask for a next video, and confirm that the model has given the same suggestion, for example. This type of tech is getting pretty good already.
If a suggestion model like this exists that can say with very high accuracy what you would artistically value next, I'd say that there is no longer any unexplained phenomena, and due to its extremely high predictive accuracy, that the features that define your artistic preferences are all accounted for as variables within the model.
So really, the question is about what artistic value really is, because the second we properly answer that question, we can start trying to model it.I'm not talking about physical phenomena, choices, or observable verbal behavior and the like. I'm simply talking about what we mean when we talk about the artistic qualities of some paintings. When I say "the composition in this painting is good" I'm not saying "X% of people will view this painting and say the compositions is good", or that "I've chosen to believe that the composition of this painting is good" or "if you subject this painting to the good-composition reagent it'll turn purple", I'm talking about an artistic quality of the painting.
Yes I understand. The disagreement comes from the fact that you believe in strong emergence whereas IMO only weak emergence makes any sense. But smarter minds than I are still wrestling with it, so wtf do I know.
To me, there is no difference between the neuronal firings and associated mental phenomena, just context. Both are ways of describing the same thing, but one is the scientific image description of that phenomenon, while the other is the manifest image description, and the manifest image appearance is more immediate but often flawed. The difference IMO lies purely in our standpoint.Are you familiar with the logical positivists and how their movement is viewed in contemporary philosophy?
Yeah, but I'm not making a lopps argument. I just think that for example the artistic properties of a painting, just do not exist on the form of an actual property in any meaningful way. We're just making a category error by trying to talk about them in the same way. -
2018-10-03 at 2:06 AM UTC
-
2018-10-03 at 2:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Are you of the belief that everyone has their own independant moral system, in that it may be morally good for one person to eat meat, and morally bad for another?
No, I am of the belief that there is only one moral SYSTEM, the network of moral agents.
The logic is simple. Think of a list of things you wouldn't want done to yourself. You cannot do those to other people, because you will have no justification when you say they shouldn't do that. Everyone can independently come to these same conclusions. If you want to murder people, you forfeit your own right to not be murdered. So assuming you don't want to forfeit your right to life and all the liberties it grants, don't murder people.If you agree that nothing inherently matters and that morality is just a human construct, than how is any of it universal in the slightest?
It doesn't have to be a fundamental law of physics, it's just the meta characterisation of the inevitable result of interactions between self interested agents. I could make a society on this basis from any group of people anywhere. The rationale holds up.Define good and bad.
That's up to you.Is it well being?
Define well-being.
No.Good is subjective.
There is no objective subjective.
Sure. But whatever you choose to take as good or bad can be fit into the system.And does not living things always do what they percieve to be "good" for themselves? How do they intentionally act "badly", or selflessly?
Exactly.Our definitions of good and bad are different. Therfor, our "morality" as you call it, which is a pointless concept that doesn't exist, would be individualized.
You can have whatever moral system you want in your head, dog. But however that transpires, it will fit nicely in to the social contract. Or you could leave society I guess.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-03 at 4:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin No, I am of the belief that there is only one moral SYSTEM, the network of moral agents.
The logic is simple. Think of a list of things you wouldn't want done to yourself. You cannot do those to other people, because you will have no justification when you say they shouldn't do that. Everyone can independently come to these same conclusions. If you want to murder people, you forfeit your own right to not be murdered. So assuming you don't want to forfeit your right to life and all the liberties it grants, don't murder people.
It doesn't have to be a fundamental law of physics, it's just the meta characterisation of the inevitable result of interactions between self interested agents. I could make a society on this basis from any group of people anywhere. The rationale holds up.
That's up to you.
No.
Sure. But whatever you choose to take as good or bad can be fit into the system.
Exactly.
You can have whatever moral system you want in your head, dog. But however that transpires, it will fit nicely in to the social contract. Or you could leave society I guess.
TLDR -
2018-10-03 at 4:30 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-03 at 6:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin The logic is simple. Think of a list of things you wouldn't want done to yourself. You cannot do those to other people, because you will have no justification when you say they shouldn't do that.
no thanks.
i do not share the similar enthusiasm you have from getting fisted by extra large negrows. -
2018-10-03 at 11:22 AM UTC
-
2018-10-03 at 11:41 AM UTCWe have a moral obligation to unsubscribe from this threadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-03 at 4:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin
Social contracts
What if I want to win the lottery because I want to be rich, but I don't want you to win the lottery because I don't care about your wealth and you are a hinderence to my winning probability?
If something only acts the way it percieves will do it the most good, and everyone always acts that way, how does bad exist? Morality is useless as one will only act the way it will. Nothing is good or bad, it just is.
I think what you're trying to refer to is percieved "wants" or "desirable outcomes" vs. Percieved "Unwants" or "undesirable outcomes". These exist; they are not synonymous with "good" and "bad", which do not exist.
Example of social contract for permitting meat eating- I can kill and eat other animals' meat, and animals can kill and eat my meat. -
2018-10-03 at 5:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano What if I want to win the lottery because I want to be rich, but I don't want you to win the lottery because I don't care about your wealth and you are a hinderence to my winning probability?
Then you probably don't understand how a lottery works.If something only acts the way it percieves will do it the most good, and everyone always acts that way, how does bad exist?
Let's say a murderer kills someone because they want to ("good" to them), but the concession they make necessarily is that they have no justification if someone else wants to murder them. They have chosen might-makes-right, essentially.
The problem is everyone else has agreed they will give up murder for the right to not be murdered, and now they have a person who does not respect that agreement in their society, and has breached it. So you don't get that protection: they can do whatever they want to you, because everything up to murdering you is less restrictive of your rights.Morality is useless as one will only act the way it will. Nothing is good or bad, it just is.
I think what you're trying to refer to is percieved "wants" or "desirable outcomes" vs. Percieved "Unwants" or "undesirable outcomes". These exist; they are not synonymous with "good" and "bad", which do not exist.
It is good and bad for the society and generally it's individuals, which is the only context that morality even exists in. That is the difference.Example of social contract for permitting meat eating- I can kill and eat other animals' meat, and animals can kill and eat my meat.
Like I said, I don't consider animals to be worthy of full moral consideration under my system: they don't give a fuck about the social contract, they will kill and eat you regardless of your moral position as a matter of convenience. -
2018-10-03 at 8:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Then you probably don't understand how a lottery works.
Let's say a murderer kills someone because they want to ("good" to them), but the concession they make necessarily is that they have no justification if someone else wants to murder them. They have chosen might-makes-right, essentially.
The problem is everyone else has agreed they will give up murder for the right to not be murdered, and now they have a person who does not respect that agreement in their society, and has breached it. So you don't get that protection: they can do whatever they want to you, because everything up to murdering you is less restrictive of your rights.
It is good and bad for the society and generally it's individuals, which is the only context that morality even exists in. That is the difference.
Like I said, I don't consider animals to be worthy of full moral consideration under my system: they don't give a fuck about the social contract, they will kill and eat you regardless of your moral position as a matter of convenience.
^fake millionaire -
2018-10-03 at 8:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin The problem is everyone else has agreed they will give up murder for the right to not be murdered, and now they have a person who does not respect that agreement in their society, and has breached it. So you don't get that protection: they can do whatever they want to you, because everything up to murdering you is less restrictive of your rights.
Nobody actually agreed to anything, and even if there were to do so they are not actually protected from any harm at all. People can do whatever they want to you, because morals and laws and "social contracts" are completely imaginary.
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Like I said, I don't consider animals to be worthy of full moral consideration under my system: they don't give a fuck about the social contract, they will kill and eat you regardless of your moral position as a matter of convenience.
Some people don't consider other people to be worthy of moral consideration, either. Because morality isn't something they think about or care about. They are able to do this because morality is a concept that only exists in the minds of those who imagine it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-03 at 8:56 PM UTCHey Obbe, do numbers exist?
