User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-23 at 11:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If that were true our ideas about morality would be modelling the reality of morality more accurately as time goes on, like our scientific theories do with the world.
"Models reality" does not imply monotonically more actuate models vs. time. Scientific inquiry has, from our present vantage, had periods of local regression where it came to model reality "less accurately" (again, relative to our current understanding of what "accurate" is). In this respect it's no different than morality. -
2018-12-23 at 11:53 PM UTC
-
2018-12-24 at 1:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing Oh cool, a positive claim. Either give a positive argument for total moral anti realism or neck yourself.
No, there is what people do, what people think they should do, and there is a fact to what they should actually do, given that they desire a certain outcome.
If you have a pizza route with a certain number of clients and you "want" to deliver pizzas as efficiently as possible to make the most money, the pizza boy's opinion of the fastest route is completely irrelevant to the factual fastest route.
That is irrespective of whether the enterprise of pizza delivery should necessarily involvemaking the most efficient deliveries or most money as a universal moral imperative.
What is "the system"?
Jesus Christ. Okay, again,
Here is an example like you were giving me earlier: If you want to get paid for delivering soup, you should bring the soup to the customer.
Okay, that above ^^ statement is pointless and redundant.
If you want to get paid for delivering soup, you will deliver it. Or you won't.
Should is redundant. There is no should. There only is. -
2018-12-24 at 1:48 AM UTCProbably gotta luv a cactus eater..
-
2018-12-24 at 2:01 AM UTCBitchs ain't fickin no damn dinner..
-
2018-12-24 at 2:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Jesus Christ. Okay, again,
Here is an example like you were giving me earlier: If you want to get paid for delivering soup, you should bring the soup to the customer.
Okay, that above ^^ statement is pointless and redundant.
If you want to get paid for delivering soup, you will deliver it. Or you won't.
Should is redundant. There is no should. There only is.
You are so fucking retarded that you do not merit a response, as I'm not going to do this again. -
2018-12-24 at 2:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny "Models reality" does not imply monotonically more actuate models vs. time. Scientific inquiry has, from our present vantage, had periods of local regression where it came to model reality "less accurately" (again, relative to our current understanding of what "accurate" is). In this respect it's no different than morality.
Do you mean due to local politics/religion? For instance the whole anti-evolution thing? Or the controversy over the Copernican model of the universe?
But remember you live in a society where it's taboo to discuss or seriously investigate how either genetics or race relates to IQ, so it's not fair to act all superior. -
2018-12-24 at 3:05 AM UTCEveryone right now should take the exact opposite stance they've been arguing and see what happens.
-
2018-12-24 at 3:30 AM UTCI decided to skip the complicated philosophy and poll those who this discussion most affects.
-
2018-12-24 at 3:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Do you mean due to local politics/religion? For instance the whole anti-evolution thing? Or the controversy over the Copernican model of the universe?
I mean local as in time. E.g. the dominant mode of psychology before phrenology was superior, our scientific understanding of the mind and behavior became worse as time progressed. Same thing for behaviorism. I'm sure there are plenty of examples in other fields as well.But remember you live in a society where it's taboo to discuss or seriously investigate how either genetics or race relates to IQ, so it's not fair to act all superior.
I never did "act all superior", hence the scare quotes around "less accurately". If you were a phrenologist you viewed your movement as progress, and while we now might have reasons to believe it wasn't, you would have had reasons to think otherwise in that time. The point here being there isn't some special property held exclusively by the what traditionally falls under the heading of "science" that makes it the only domain in human experience where objective facts exist. -
2018-12-24 at 3:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I mean local as in time. E.g. the dominant mode of psychology before phrenology was superior, our scientific understanding of the mind and behavior became worse as time progressed. Same thing for behaviorism. I'm sure there are plenty of examples in other fields as well.
I never did "act all superior", hence the scare quotes around "less accurately". If you were a phrenologist you viewed your movement as progress, and while we now might have reasons to believe it wasn't, you would have had reasons to think otherwise in that time. The point here being there isn't some special property held exclusively by the what traditionally falls under the heading of "science" that makes it the only domain in human experience where objective facts exist.
Was phrenology not an advancement? I mean we now know - broadly speaking - which areas of the brain do what, and what a highly intelligent brain looks like. We might laugh at the old style cranial callipers, and even at the brains preserved in formaldehyde, but phrenology gave rise more or less directly to modern neuroscience.
OTOH behaviourism and lysenkoism were BS, but they weren't really scientific in any real sense, more a sort of theory that wasn't allowed to be tested or falsified. All theories have a certain sort of validity, but theories must be tested. -
2018-12-24 at 4:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing I could argue with you about how you're wrong on four different levels. Instead I am going to call you a faggot.
actually modern 'irons' are made out of plastics, aluminum alloy and small amount of ferrous alloys
so they can never be on a periodic table because its reserved for atomically and molecularily pure elements. -
2018-12-24 at 4:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing You are so fucking retarded that you do not merit a response, as I'm not going to do this again.
I said what Obbe just said in different words, which was what I said earlier. Partly because you didn't respond to it.
@Lanny
Moral Obligation is a function that society imposes on people to get them to act a certain way. Nobody knows what is good and bad. There is no non-referential good and bad.
Good and bad only exist to people because it makes them feel differently when they decide to believe in such things. Therefor, morality is based on feelings, not reason. Therfor, a moral obligation is an imposed obligation on someone based on someone else's feelings. Not based on reasons.
Ex. The reason you should do this is to maximize happiness/whateverness.
What is universal happiness? Answer- I don't know. I think it is this and this and this.
Why?
Because that feels better.
The root of morality is feelings. Feelings are subjective. Moral obligations are obligations based on feelings, and not necessarily your own.
@Lanny if there is a universally true moral system, do you expect everyone to conform legally? Peradventure it would increase the maximum happiness/whateverness to do so.(?)
Anyway, nothing can be made better, and nothing can be made worse. If I kick somebody's aunt, that doesn't make the world any better or worse. -
2018-12-24 at 5:02 AM UTCMoral obligation = have to
YOU HAVE TO
thread title needs an 'or else...' -
2018-12-24 at 5:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano I said what Obbe just said in different words, which was what I said earlier. Partly because you didn't respond to it.
@Lanny
Moral Obligation is a function that society imposes on people to get them to act a certain way. Nobody knows what is good and bad. There is no non-referential good and bad.
not really, no.
i have wrote a lenghtly article about how moralities are the the herd mentality that betas adopt themselves to enable them to coexist peacefully with the alfas,
but lannys wordenhancement ruined it and the entire context and im too lazy to rewrite it. -
2018-12-24 at 5:03 AM UTC
-
2018-12-24 at 5:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny not really, no.
i have wrote a lenghtly article about how moralities are the the herd mentality that betas adopt themselves to enable them to coexist peacefully with the alfas,
but lannys wordenhancement ruined it and the entire context and im too lazy to rewrite it.
I read a study about he who says beta a beta million times is beta. Tthen wondered but I don't ever say it so how true? -
2018-12-24 at 5:05 AM UTC
-
2018-12-24 at 5:07 AM UTC
-
2018-12-24 at 5:08 AM UTC
