User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-10-04 at 10:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin 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.
*thinks government and society are things he agreed to*
Originally posted by AL-LADdin 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.
*thinks the police will protect him*
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Are you retarded.
*thinks people can't do whatever they want*
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Fortunately, other people are allowed to consider you unworthy of moral consideration in response.
It's not that people are "allowed to in response". Nobody needs to morally consider you at all, period.
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Irrelevant. Again, you don't need any particular moral system or considerations to be subject to the system.
You don't need to be religious to be affected by religious systems either, that doesn't make religious beliefs true.
Originally posted by AL-LADdin 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.
Normal people have a normal sense of morality, what they believe is right or wrong, but their beliefs aren't truths. Similarly I may believe something is worth millions of dollars but that doesn't mean it has any real value. -
2018-10-04 at 11:27 AM UTC
-
2018-10-04 at 12:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin 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.
None of that matters, you don't "ought" to anything.Because goodness and badness are processes
Which are?If you have the money for a sandwich and want to eliminate the feeling of hunger, what ought you to do?
I eat a sandwich. Or I don't. I don't "ought" to eat a sandwich. I don't "ought" to anything. -
2018-10-04 at 12:31 PM UTCI light a candle and place it up in the mantle, grab a knife by the blade and stab you with fuck handle.
-
2018-10-04 at 12:43 PM UTCWHY DOES THIS THREAD KEEP APPEARING IN MY SUBSCRIPTIONS
-
2018-10-04 at 12:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It's not that people are "allowed to in response". Nobody needs to morally consider you at all, period.
That's what I'm saying: you fit into the system anyhow.You don't need to be religious to be affected by religious systems either, that doesn't make religious beliefs true.
Who said anything about truth? Stop moving the goalposts. Religious beliefs are real. Just like money.Normal people have a normal sense of morality
No such thingwhat they believe is right or wrong, but their beliefs aren't truths.
See above. What you believe morally, or truth, are irrelevant for there to be a way you ought to behave. There is only self interest. If you don't want to go to forfeit your right to life for example, you don't murder. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than basic self interest.Similarly I may believe something is worth millions of dollars but that doesn't mean it has any real value.
Again, you are retarded: what do you think something's "real" value is? If you ask for a million dollars for it and someone pays it, do you think it's not "really" worth $1m? Or is it not "really" valuable because dollars are an illusion?
In which case, are you prepared to give all your money away. I mean, it's an illusion right? -
2018-10-04 at 12:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano None of that matters, you don't "ought" to anything.
Sure it does. If you want X outcome, you should do Y. Seems straightforward. IF you don't want to forfeit your right to life (and be tossed in prison) THEN you shouldn't kill anyone.Which are?
"Would I like it if someone else did this to me?"I eat a sandwich.Or I don't.
Why or why not?I don't "ought" to eat a sandwich. I don't "ought" to anything.
Ah, I see: you don't know what the word means. -
2018-10-04 at 1:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Sure it does. If you want X outcome, you should do Y. Seems straightforward.
I do X. There is no Y.IF you don't want to forfeit your right to life (and be tossed in prison) THEN you shouldn't kill anyone.
I haven't agreed to social contracts. You can't and don't impose them upon me. It doesn't matter if I infringe upon your social contract that you assume I agree to but do not.
Social contracts break all the time, which is part of why they don't exist. I am always self-serving. If I don't kill someone today, but kill someone tomorrow, those were acts of self-serving.
You could try to say that all of those things were what "ought" to have happened for me, but that assumes ought exists, which it doesn't. Only is exists. I did those things, I didn't "ought" to have done them and then did them."Would I like it if someone else did this to me?"
Your definition of goodness and/or. badness is the processes of "Would I like it if someone else did this to me?"
Steve Harvey's definition is different, and neither of them matter.
Your set of moral rules only matter to you because you choose to believe in morality.Why or why not?
Because I do whatever I will do. There is no "should" do.
In other words, I do X. There is no Y. -
2018-10-04 at 1:37 PM UTCThis is the is-ought problem. You can't get ought from is. There only is. You have to prove ought, which you can't. Is is self-evident.
-
2018-10-04 at 2:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano This is the is-ought problem. You can't get ought from is.
You are an idiot. Go back and READ. I am not suggesting you can get an ought from an is.
That would be something like "IF you are hungry, THEN eat a sandwich"; you necessarily need the "and your goal is to eliminate your hunger" clause, but it is usually implicit. I am not suggesting that. Whatever your goal is, it can neatly slide into a social contract.There only is.
Citation neededYou have to prove ought, which you can't.
Okay, let's prove ought. What do you think "ought" means?Is is self-evident.
No. -
2018-10-04 at 2:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano I do X. There is no Y.
How do you do X and why that way?I haven't agreed to social contracts.
Your "agreement" is imaginary and only exists in your mind. The only IS is that you exist and continue to operate within a society. You are in and have agreed to a social contract.You can't and don't impose them upon me.
You can and do impose it upon yourself.It doesn't matter if I infringe upon your social contract that you assume I agree to but do not.
Then we are resorting to what you "want" to do, i.e. might makes right, where your might is heavily overpowered.Social contracts break all the time
Yep. You exit the social contract and are no longer worthy of moral consideration, because you don't extend that to anyone else. We remove those people from society.which is part of why they don't exist.
Ta es don't exist cuz some people don't pay them.I am always self-serving. If I don't kill someone today, but kill someone tomorrow, those were acts of self-serving.
Of course. How do you think either of those act would be viewed in a social context?You could try to say that all of those things were what "ought" to have happened for me, but that assumes ought exists, which it doesn't. Only is exists. I did those things, I didn't "ought" to have done them and then did them.
This section makes grammatical sense but no semantic sense.
If you buy a new phone and it doesn't fulfill your needs and criteria as well as the other phone, you ought to have bought the other phone and made a bad decision. It isn't any more complicated than that.Your definition of goodness and/or. badness is the processes of "Would I like it if someone else did this to me?"
Steve Harvey's definition is different, and neither of them matter.
No, whatever Steve Harvey's definition is, is still passed through the sieve of whether or not he would want to give up the complementary anti-right, whether or not he even knows or acknowledges it.Your set of moral rules only matter to you because you choose to believe in morality.
Even if I didn't believe in morality, the same set of interactions would play out, and did in the forms of society.Because I do whatever I will do. There is no "should" do.
In other words, I do X. There is no Y.
See above: you are babbling. -
2018-10-04 at 2:22 PM UTCThread was OK until the mudslide started posting walls of gibberish. At least Lannygurls text walls make sense...
-
2018-10-04 at 2:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin You are an idiot. Go back and READ. I am not suggesting you can get an ought from an is.
That would be something like "IF you are hungry, THEN eat a sandwich"; you necessarily need the "and your goal is to eliminate your hunger" clause, but it is usually implicit. I am not suggesting that. Whatever your goal is, it can neatly slide into a social contract.
What
It's the is-ought problem, not the if-then problem.Okay, let's prove ought. What do you think "ought" means?
Of course it is a word pertaining to a concept, but I reject the premise that it can be applied to anything, as there is no empirical evidence to prove that it does.
The concept that bunnies control the world is a concept that exists in that it has been thought of, but is not empirically founded in any way and there is no reason to believe that it's proveable.No.
Look at what is. Look at what ought to be.
Of course I can't completely prove is is, but I have strong empirical evidence of it, and it is inherently more likely to exist than ought, which is a concept with no empirical evidence to support it. We are empirical creatures. We base our findings on empircal evidence. There is no empirical evidence of ought. I can physically interact with what is. What is your empirical evidence that something ought to be anything? -
2018-10-04 at 3:05 PM UTCNobody has to to enter a social contract.
X and Y can be combined if you wish. Seperating them is pointless.
For instance, I bought a small ham because it was cheaper. It did not fill me up, and I want more.
If I could go back in time and retain my present knowledge, I would buy the bigger ham. But I can't do that, and likely never will, so it is pointless to think I ought to have bought a bigger ham, because I cannot act on that concept. If I want to buy a bigger ham, I will. I will not "ought" to buy a bigger ham.
I can think that I ought to buy a bigger ham, but that is pointless and the concept does not apply as I will either buy a bigger ham, not buy a bigger ham, or do whatever irregardless of what I think I "ought" to do. -
2018-10-04 at 3:12 PM UTCAll of this typing is pointless. Nobody has changed anyone's opinion. And at the end of the day this entire concept is a matter of opinion.
-
2018-10-04 at 5:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano What
It's the is-ought problem, not the if-then problem.
The point of the is ought problem is not that ought doesn't exist, but that it cannot be derived from is. It is an irreducibility of such subjectives to objectives. Nobody is claiming you can reduce oughts to ises I don't know if you are stupid or just bad trolling.Of course it is a word pertaining to a concept, but I reject the premise that it can be applied to anything, as there is no empirical evidence to prove that it does.
You're not answering the question and your logic is circular. You basically don't understand what it even is.
The concept that bunnies control the world is a concept that exists in that it has been thought of, but is not empirically founded in any way and there is no reason to believe that it's proveable.
You are not answering the question and are retarded. Do you think that money exists or no?Look at what is. Look at what ought to be.
Okay. And?Of course I can't completely prove is is, but I have strong empirical evidence of it
What is it?and it is inherently more likely to exist than ought
Why? You're making that statement but you're not actually saying why. I don't care what your dumb belief is in itself. I am asking you why you hold that.which is a concept with no empirical evidence to support it.
Refusing to accept analytical reasoning and empirical examples of "ought" as a real, consequential operator within the world, doesn't mean there is no evidence for it. That just means you are dumb.We are empirical creatures. We base our findings on empircal evidence.
Lul.There is no empirical evidence of ought. I can physically interact with what is. What is your empirical evidence that something ought to be anything?
Well no, not at all actually, not without the introduction of an ought. Since you don't know: empirical observation does not lead you to objective, deductive truth, it only facilitates inductive reasoning. This basic fact is what created the necessity for "ought".
When you see a sandwich and reach to pick it up, you are making that decision with the thesis that a bunch of things will happen through this operation, which will allow for the outcome where you put it in your mouth.
No, you're not doing because it will happen; that is not possible from empirical observations and inductive reasoning. You're doing it because you think it ought to happen based on what you have seen before. -
2018-10-04 at 6:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Nobody has to to enter a social contract.
If you exist in a society,vyou enter a social contract.X and Y can be combined if you wish. Seperating them is pointless.
Literally doesn't make any sense in regards to anything I've said.For instance, I bought a small ham because it was cheaper. It did not fill me up, and I want more.
If I could go back in time and retain my present knowledge, I would buy the bigger ham.
But I can't do that, and likely never will, so it is pointless to think I ought to have bought a bigger ham, because I cannot act on that concept. If I want to buy a bigger ham, I will. I will not "ought" to buy a bigger ham.
I can think that I ought to buy a bigger ham, but that is pointless and the concept does not apply as I will either buy a bigger ham, not buy a bigger ham, or do whatever irregardless of what I think I "ought" to do.
If you had to choose between the bigger ham and the smaller one, what criteria would you use to decide which one to get?
You can dodge the question all you want dawg, I'm gonna keep asking it. -
2018-10-04 at 6:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin That's what I'm saying: you fit into the system anyhow.
Who said anything about truth? Stop moving the goalposts. Religious beliefs are real. Just like money.
No such thing
See above. What you believe morally, or truth, are irrelevant for there to be a way you ought to behave. There is only self interest. If you don't want to go to forfeit your right to life for example, you don't murder. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than basic self interest.
Again, you are retarded: what do you think something's "real" value is? If you ask for a million dollars for it and someone pays it, do you think it's not "really" worth $1m? Or is it not "really" valuable because dollars are an illusion?
In which case, are you prepared to give all your money away. I mean, it's an illusion right?
Following your logic, there must be an infinite amount of "systems" we all fit into, like the ooogawooga system. That might not mean anything at all to you, but according to your logic it must exist because someone somewhere imagines it exists.
I haven't moved any goal posts you idiot. I've been talking about truth this entire time. I never claimed moral beliefs don't exist... only that they are imaginary, exactly like religious beliefs. Throughout this entire thread I have been consistent on my claim that a person's morality is their sense of what is right and what is wrong... but what they feel is right or wrong is not objective, it's imagined.
A Christian person has Christian morality. A psychopath has psychopathic morality. Whatever a person believes is right or wrong is their opinion or belief or imagination, not objective, not a truth.
Of course every goal has a way of being achieved that is better or more efficient or whatever than other ways. Of you want to win a race it's probably better to train than to sit around and watch TV. But there are no objective goals. There is nothing we should be doing. There is no way things are supposed to be, there is only how things are and how thing are not.
Value is subjective, like right or wrong. There is no "real" value, just like there is no "real" right or wrong.
Of course I wouldnt give all my money away, just like I wouldn't do things I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean I believe the things I consider to be wrong are inherently or objectively wrong.
Why are you even arguing with me? Do you actually disagree with anything I am saying?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-05 at 12:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Following your logic, there must be an infinite amount of "systems" we all fit into, like the ooogawooga system. That might not mean anything at all to you, but according to your logic it must exist because someone somewhere imagines it exists.
No, I said that the specific morals of a different society could be different, based on the nature of the agents that form it.I haven't moved any goal posts you idiot. I've been talking about truth this entire time. I never claimed moral beliefs don't exist… only that they are imaginary, exactly like religious beliefs.
No, your claim was that they were imaginary, and meaningless. You've literally said dozens of times that it's not objective so it's irrelevant. Which is fucking retarded.Throughout this entire thread I have been consistent on my claim that a person's morality is their sense of what is right and what is wrong… but what they feel is right or wrong is not objective, it's imagined.
The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you still can't understand this says a lot.A Christian person has Christian morality. A psychopath has psychopathic morality. Whatever a person believes is right or wrong is their opinion or belief or imagination, not objective, not a truth.
And all of these can be integrated into a social contract under the same rules. What the specific morality a person has is irrelevant: how they ought to behave in any situation where other people are concerned is governed by the same logical framework. It is literally game theory.
I would recommend reading Game Theory and the Social Contract: Playing Fair by Ken Binmore for a more laid out and properly developed explanation of the idea.Of course every goal has a way of being achieved that is better or more efficient or whatever than other ways. If you want to win a race it's probably better to train than to sit around and watch TV.
I like how you're trying to avoid saying "ought".But there are no objective goals.
Of courseThere is nothing we should be doing.
Actually almost true, strictly speaking. Morality within a social contract is mostly about things you shouldn't be doing. You need a good reason to take someone's liberties away, or more precisely, no one gives up a right for no reason.There is no way things are supposed to be, there is only how things are and how thing are not.
Do you think the future or present is indeterminate and exists irrespective of the past?Value is subjective, like right or wrong. There is no "real" value, just like there is no "real" right or wrong.
Again, the idea that subjective things cannot be modelled objectively is just plain retardation, I honestly do not understand how you don't grasp this.Of course I wouldnt give all my money away, just like I wouldn't do things I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean I believe the things I consider to be wrong are inherently or objectively wrong.
You are dodging the real question: is money subjective, imaginary and irrelevant? I mean, dollars don't really exist. Or is it some kind of system that people in a society agree on intersubjectively?Why are you even arguing with me? Do you actually disagree with anything I am saying?
I thought the above posts might be sufficient to answer that. -
2018-10-05 at 2:08 AM UTC
