User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-22 at 3:25 AM UTCempirical results of the difference between meat rich and meat poor diets :
-
2018-12-22 at 3:27 AM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 3:36 AM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 9:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think I did, it really is just personal preference. Maybe you misunderstand what moral obligations really are?
You are more guilty of conflating the two than anyone else in the thread.I think people are going to eat each other, kill each other and destroy each other regardless of whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or what our preferences are. The system makes these things illegal because these things are bad for the system, disrupt cohesion. Whether you or I believe these behaviors are right or wrong is irrelevant to what the system does.
What you think is completely irrelevant to the moral reality of meat consumption. Whether or not people are too stupid to make the right moral decision is an irrelevant response. Maybe you are having troubles with athletic abilities?A solution to all of that impending doom you mentioned is something the system is going to be seeking if it doesn't want to collapse. Nobody has any real obligation to do anything at all, though some people feel like they do.
Do you have a moral obligation to not kill children and burn their corpses over rubber tires in your backyard?The system will utilize propaganda to compel you to feel a certain way, the system will attempt to influence your beliefs but that's all they are. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and preferences. You really can do whatever you want to do, but try to destroy the system you face the consequences. Everyone is doing what matters to them, and the system is doing what matters to it. Maybe everything will collapse and turn back into dust one day.
You are literally babbling, completely incapable of addressing any point with a relevant answer, and possibly borderline brain damaged. Nothing stated here is relevant whatsoever to the question of moral obligation . -
2018-12-22 at 12:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Do you believe that there is one "true" universal morality system, even if it is not fully known or understood yet?
I do believe that, but the point there, and that I've made to obbe several times in this thread and which we still seem to be talking past each other on is about what is meant when I or OP or most people in this thread mean when they say "moral obligation". -
2018-12-22 at 1:41 PM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 1:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I do believe that, but the point there, and that I've made to obbe several times in this thread and which we still seem to be talking past each other on is about what is meant when I or OP or most people in this thread mean when they say "moral obligation".
Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong. -
2018-12-22 at 1:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I do believe that, but the point there, and that I've made to obbe several times in this thread and which we still seem to be talking past each other on is about what is meant when I or OP or most people in this thread mean when they say "moral obligation".
And you made absolutely no attempt to explain why if someone is stupid enough (lacking "moral agency") they should be allowed to inflict suffering on other living creatures.
You're just like the Christian coming and telling people about sin, and how they need not to sin, and them wondering "why did he tell me this, now my life is shittier as a result".
And no one can think up a good reason why you tell someone who is unaware of sin why they need to be told about sin so they can get to follow all these rules, except blah blah something when you're dead. -
2018-12-22 at 2:16 PM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 3:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing You are more guilty of conflating the two than anyone else in the thread.
What you think is completely irrelevant to the moral reality of meat consumption. Whether or not people are too stupid to make the right moral decision is an irrelevant response. Maybe you are having troubles with athletic abilities?
Do you have a moral obligation to not kill children and burn their corpses over rubber tires in your backyard?
You are literally babbling, completely incapable of addressing any point with a relevant answer, and possibly borderline brain damaged. Nothing stated here is relevant whatsoever to the question of moral obligation .
What you think about "moral reality" is completely irrelevant to reality. People are going to do whatever they feel like doing. The system will pressure people into feeling that somethings are right and some things are wrong based on what is best for it. There is no "right" decision, only responses based on what people feel is right or wrong. People who make different choices than you have a different moral code. Imagine you see a runaway trolleymoving toward five tied-up people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Or pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the moral choice depends entirely on how you feel about the outcome it will lead to. There is no "moral reality" there is only how you feel about your decision and how the system will respond to your decision. -
2018-12-22 at 3:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I do believe that, but the point there, and that I've made to obbe several times in this thread and which we still seem to be talking past each other on is about what is meant when I or OP or most people in this thread mean when they say "moral obligation".
When you say "We have a moral obligation" you mean "I think we should do this," but in a really pretentious and entitled way. -
2018-12-22 at 3:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe When you say "We have a moral obligation" you mean "I think we should do this," but in a really pretentious and entitled way.
That's unclear - what does should mean?
You should brush your teeth. It benefits you.
How can anyone say I should do something that doesn't benefit me?
We goyim are getting real fucking tired of being told what we "should" do. -
2018-12-22 at 4:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth That's unclear - what does should mean?
You should brush your teeth. It benefits you.
How can anyone say I should do something that doesn't benefit me?
We goyim are getting real fucking tired of being told what we "should" do.
The system will compel you to feel that you should do whatever the system needs you to be doing. Whether that is consuming more of this or less of that, building these or destroying those, it's all based on what the system needs and whatever individuals think is right or wrong is irrelevant unless the system starts to use them as little propaganda machines.
Brushing your teeth is good for your health but is it morally right? Does that question even matter? Does it even make sense? Guess it depends on how you feel about the things that live on your teeth. -
2018-12-22 at 5:45 PM UTC
-
2018-12-22 at 10:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What you think about "moral reality" is completely irrelevant to reality. People are going to do whatever they feel like doing.
And whether people do what they feel like doing is completely irrelevant to whether they are doing what they should be doing, irrespective of their belief in it. That is what is being asserted. I can't believe you are so fucking retarded that this has to be explained this many times.
Everything from this point onwards in this post is strictly irrelevant, but I'm arguing it anyway because you're dumb:The system will pressure people into feeling that somethings are right and some things are wrong based on what is best for it.
Well no, that's just blatantly false. People make normative judgments completely independent of "the system maaan". Let me press your hand to a hot stove and hold it there while telling you your subjective judgment on the experience is irrelevant.There is no "right" decision, only responses based on what people feel is right or wrong.
Jimmy, answer the following question:
How many vertices does a triangle have?People who make different choices than you have a different moral code.
Yes duh, are you stupid? For any moral discussion to reach a conclusion, it will ultimately rely on us coming to terms on certain moral premises to start with.
This is why we can have practical moral discussions, as we do in many current events and political cases cases, because we can start from points of moral agreement (including articles of international law), without agreeing in ultimate moral truths or even our most basic axioms or systems.
So if I offer a trolley problem like postwar Hitler who was captured and given a full judicial trial and found guilty and admitted his own guilt vs 5000 newborn babies, most people will realistically opt to kill Hitler. Why? Because whether or not we all agree on the same ultimate moral authorities, we can still conduct moral discussions and come to moral agreements. We do this all the time. A Muslim and a Christian can both agree that murder is wrong.
Again, I cannot believe I am having this autistic never-took-a-phil-class discussion with someone who claims to have been interested in philosophy for so many years. -
2018-12-23 at 1:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
That's not common usage, that's not what you'll find in the dictionary, and that's not how the term has been used in this thread. You are wrong on every level it is possible to be wrong about the meaning of a word.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth And you made absolutely no attempt to explain why if someone is stupid enough (lacking "moral agency") they should be allowed to inflict suffering on other living creatures.
I made no effort to explain that because I don't think that's the case and never said it was, you mentally deficient cunt.
Originally posted by Obbe When you say "We have a moral obligation" you mean "I think we should do this," but in a really pretentious and entitled way.
When a physicist says "an electron has less mass than a proton" they are, in some sense, saying "I think that <an electron has less mass than a proto>" and in that same sense when I say things about moral obligations I'm also expressing my opinions, but whether my opinions are correct or not, there is a fact to the matter. I'm sorry that you've been offended by the ever so pretentious claim that there are true and false statements about the world but uhh, that's kinda not my problem? -
2018-12-23 at 1:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I made no effort to explain that because I don't think that's the case and never said it was, you mentally deficient cunt.
Yeah, that's great. I'm a retard, so aren't bound by your stupid rules of morality that nobody is interested in following. So throw me that nice big browned steak over there.When a physicist says "an electron has less mass than a proton" they are, in some sense, saying "I think that <an electron has less mass than a proto>" and in that same sense when I say things about moral obligations I'm also expressing my opinions, but whether my opinions are correct or not, there is a fact to the matter. I'm sorry that you've been offended by the ever so pretentious claim that there are true and false statements about the world but uhh, that's kinda not my problem?
Cool. Nice opinions. True and false statements. So you eating those prawns over there? Throw me them over, I'll eat them for you. -
2018-12-23 at 1:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Yeah, that's great. I'm a retard, so aren't bound by your stupid rules of morality that nobody is interested in following. So throw me that nice big browned steak over there.
Again, literally the opposite of what I've said to you multiple times now. Suck my dick -
2018-12-23 at 5:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing And whether people do what they feel like doing is completely irrelevant to whether they are doing what they should be doing, irrespective of their belief in it. That is what is being asserted. I can't believe you are so fucking retarded that this has to be explained this many times.
Everything from this point onwards in this post is strictly irrelevant, but I'm arguing it anyway because you're dumb:
Well no, that's just blatantly false. People make normative judgments completely independent of "the system maaan". Let me press your hand to a hot stove and hold it there while telling you your subjective judgment on the experience is irrelevant.
Jimmy, answer the following question:
How many vertices does a triangle have?
Yes duh, are you stupid? For any moral discussion to reach a conclusion, it will ultimately rely on us coming to terms on certain moral premises to start with.
This is why we can have practical moral discussions, as we do in many current events and political cases cases, because we can start from points of moral agreement (including articles of international law), without agreeing in ultimate moral truths or even our most basic axioms or systems.
So if I offer a trolley problem like postwar Hitler who was captured and given a full judicial trial and found guilty and admitted his own guilt vs 5000 newborn babies, most people will realistically opt to kill Hitler. Why? Because whether or not we all agree on the same ultimate moral authorities, we can still conduct moral discussions and come to moral agreements. We do this all the time. A Muslim and a Christian can both agree that murder is wrong.
Again, I cannot believe I am having this autistic never-took-a-phil-class discussion with someone who claims to have been interested in philosophy for so many years.
You're assuming there is something people should be doing. There isn't. There is only what people do, what people think they should do, and what the system compels people to do.
Originally posted by Lanny That's not common usage, that's not what you'll find in the dictionary, and that's not how the term has been used in this thread. You are wrong on every level it is possible to be wrong about the meaning of a word.
I made no effort to explain that because I don't think that's the case and never said it was, you mentally deficient cunt.
When a physicist says "an electron has less mass than a proton" they are, in some sense, saying "I think that <an electron has less mass than a proto>" and in that same sense when I say things about moral obligations I'm also expressing my opinions, but whether my opinions are correct or not, there is a fact to the matter. I'm sorry that you've been offended by the ever so pretentious claim that there are true and false statements about the world but uhh, that's kinda not my problem?
Opinions about morality cannot be true, only consistent with the moral framework they emerge from. If I don't share your moral framework I won't share your moral conclusions. The mass of that proton on the other hand is something that is consistently demonstrateable whether I acknowledge it or not. If I feel something is right or wrong, and you feel the opposite, that doesn't tell us anything about reality, that only tells us about how each of us feel about something.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-23 at 5:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Opinions about morality cannot be true, only consistent with the moral framework they emerge from.
Then you've misunderstood what is meant by terms like "moral obligation".If I don't share your moral framework I won't share your moral conclusions.
Aristotle didn't share our framework of physics and didn't share our conclusions about physical systems. That doesn't mean Aristotelian physics is just as valid modern standard model physics.
