User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-10-03 at 9:10 PM UTC
-
2018-10-03 at 9:10 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-03 at 9:14 PM UTC
-
2018-10-03 at 9:20 PM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 12:30 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 1:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin 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.
Define what "good" or "bad" for society is.
Define "good" or "bad".
Everyone has their own interpretation of what is good for society.
Nothing is good or bad for society. Morality only exists if you will it to exist. Nobody is bound to a set of rules that don't exist.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-04 at 1:21 AM UTCGood is what is best productive to the whole.
Bad is what is least productive to the whole. -
2018-10-04 at 1:23 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 1:35 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 1:49 AM UTCWe have a moral obligation to know what 2+2 is.
-
2018-10-04 at 2:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Nobody actually agreed to anything
Sure they did. In its softer form, the result is called a society. But usually, it's called a government.
We agree on the mandate every 4 years in the USA, for example. Of course real world governments aren't a very true reflection of the idea, but that's a failure of implementation. In theory, we would derive law in direct representation of each individual of the society but that was never, ever on the cards before telecommunications were invented, and it definitely still isn't now.and even if there were to do so they are not actually protected from any harm at all.
Sure they are. That is the purpose of, for example, the police, or the military, which is meant to stop another society with different agreements from encroaching upon yours.People can do whatever they want to you, because morals and laws and "social contracts" are completely imaginary.
Are you retarded.Some people don't consider other people to be worthy of moral consideration, either.
Fortunately, other people are allowed to consider you unworthy of moral consideration in response.Because morality isn't something they think about or care about.
Irrelevant. Again, you don't need any particular moral system or considerations to be subject to the system.They are able to do this because morality is a concept that only exists in the minds of those who imagine it.
Dollars only exist in the minds of those who imagine it too. Objectively, it's just another mess of atoms. Care to donate everything you have to charity? It is an imaginary and made up idea after all. -
2018-10-04 at 3:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Define what "good" or "bad" for society is.
That would depend on the individuals in the society. It is probable that you can generate radically different set of specific moral ideas for different societies with different specific details, but they would operate under the same principles as long as it is a society composed of individuals.
Whatever is good for the society is based on whether or not it is good as judged by the individuals within it, because a society is composed of individuals.
For example murder is bad because everyone in our society wouldn't like to be murdered. If that attitude didn't exist, then murder wouldn't be bad. The whole point of morality is your interaction with other moral agents.
More importantly, I'm not claiming that any particular moral value is true or objective. I'm telling you that there is an underlying substrate of analytical logic and game theory that generally applies to all societies. The variables to plug in are the specifics of a given society. The point of a moral system is to give you what you ought to do in a situation, which can be characterised roughly in the form "If X then you ought to do Y." It is idiotic to demand a universal Y as a hallmark of an objective moral system, or claim no moral system exists because there are a lot of different Xes that you could possibly plug in: the moral system is the formula.Define "good" or "bad".
No.Everyone has their own interpretation of what is good for society.
You don't need to consider the greater good of society at all, just whether or not you are making an action that would forfeit some right you don't want to forfeit (note: this doesn't have anything to do with being CAUGHT.)
The morality arises from the interaction of all these different agents and more or less takes care of itself.Nothing is good or bad for society.
NoMorality only exists if you will it to exist.
Sure, but so does money. It doesn't exist out in "nature". Someone has to make it.Nobody is bound to a set of rules that don't exist.
Again, I question whether or not you are within the realm of sanity when you tell me something doesn't exist but it clearly has a causal impact in reality. -
2018-10-04 at 3:59 AM UTCI have a question for you my Falco.
What specifically is the argument at this point? We certainly aren't talking about MEAT anymore, so what IS the discussion? Is there a means to these ends right now? Is there something that anyone is trying to convince anyone of other than what they understand to be their set of morals or what morality means? -
2018-10-04 at 4:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I have a question for you my Falco.
What specifically is the argument at this point? We certainly aren't talking about MEAT anymore, so what IS the discussion?
Simply that the current objections offered against the thesis of the thread are retarded: morals exist like economics exist.Is there a means to these ends right now?
you got that backwards fam
[Qukte]Is there something that anyone is trying to convince anyone of other than what they understand to be their set of morals or what morality means?
If you defeat an objection, we can return to the main argument again. -
2018-10-04 at 4:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin That would depend on the individuals in the society. It is probable that you can generate radically different set of specific moral ideas for different societies with different specific details, but they would operate under the same principles as long as it is a society composed of individuals.
Whatever is good for the society is based on whether or not it is good as judged by the individuals within it, because a society is composed of individuals.
For example murder is bad because everyone in our society wouldn't like to be murdered. If that attitude didn't exist, then murder wouldn't be bad. The whole point of morality is your interaction with other moral agents.
You are talking about popular belief being the true belief.No.
Why?The point of a moral system is to give you what you ought to do in a situation, which can be characterised roughly in the form "If X then you ought to do Y."
There is no Y. Only X.
There is no ought. There only is. -
2018-10-04 at 4:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Simply that the current objections offered against the thesis of the thread are retarded: morals exist like economics exist.
you got that backwards fam
[Qukte]Is there something that anyone is trying to convince anyone of other than what they understand to be their set of morals or what morality means?
If you defeat an objection, we can return to the main argument again.
Well I like to think I can defeat objection by bringing my simple minded points to the table. Ultimately the discussion is just up your alley in terms of how the way things ought to be...
Oh. OOOOOHHH.
TRIGGERED MYSELF.
since I know that will never change probably (or do I) these discussions SEEM futile.
Fuck
I'm scared I think I'm having a mind zap. I wish I could write into words what my mind thinks sometimes -
2018-10-04 at 4:50 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 5:08 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 5:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano You are talking about popular belief being the true belief.
No, I'm talking about the truth of the fact that how you ought to behave to others is based entirely on how you would like to be treated yourself by others, simply because it would be contradictory to assign the value of good to doing something that will directly lead to something you assign the value of bad (losing the complementary "anti right"). This is an analytical truth.Why?
Because goodness and badness are processes, not "things".There is no Y. Only X.
Are you being retarded on purpose.
There is no ought. There only is.
If you have the money for a sandwich and want to eliminate the feeling of hunger, what ought you to do? -
2018-10-04 at 8:39 AM UTC
