User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-25 at 3:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing Literally everything happens for its own sake.
Yes, exactly. Everything that is happening is happening, but there is nothing that "should" be happening. People deliver pizzas because people deliver pizzas, not because they "should".
Originally posted by Loing Everyone else that the agent comes into contact with.
So you imagine an agents agency is determined by other agents with agency. I don't think I agree with that. An agents agency is an inherent quality of their agentness.
Originally posted by Loing But we allow this level of judgment to abstracted away to society because we want to do other things.
You use the roads so you do too, and you also make principally avoidable but practically unavoidable concessions to participate in (and benefit from the membership of) the Moral Agents Club of society.
Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is unimportant. But in all important matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee. Modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the individuation process. The “mid-life crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
Before the system took over, life was a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the individuation process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” The fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the individuation process—with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the individuation process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. This is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the individuation process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the individuation process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
The oversocialized man has feelings of inferiority so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the oversocialized man. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. He may claim that his activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, but compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for moralist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of moralist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much of their behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people, or animals whom the moraliats claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But moral activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for individuation. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the moraliats would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. -
2018-12-25 at 5:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Yes, exactly. Everything that is happening is happening, but there is nothing that "should" be happening. People deliver pizzas because people deliver pizzas, not because they "should".
Well no, not exactly, it is completely opposite of your point and your statement is retarded. The current state of the universe turns into the next state by virtue of the properties of the current state. But this is not the context in which pizzas exist. People deliver pizzas because people want to make money, which is provided to them in exchange for their service in delivering the pizza. If he wants to do the job as well as possible, he ought to adopt the most efficient route. To say "he will or he won't" is an autistic category error that blatantly just changes the subject. If I buy 10 packs of candy with 20 candies per pack, I reason that if the packaging is accurate and I did receive the right amount of packages, I ought to find 200 candies in my purchase. This relation of two facts is completely independent of whether or not there are in fact 200 candies, which is not going to be the case if either of my first assumptions are wrong. The point of Hume's assertion of the gap between is an ought is that there is always a hidden assumption in the relation between two "is"es.
Again, autisticslly denying that "ought" exists isn't a coherent argument. I know you are trying to parrot Sam Harris on this because you thought he said something vaguely similar one time, but he doesn't deny the existence of oughts either.So you imagine an agents agency is determined by other agents with agency. I don't think I agree with that. An agents agency is an inherent quality of their agentness.
No I said the sufficiency of your moral agency is determined by other agents. You're the one who has to assert your competence as a moral agent. They are the ones that have to accept your competence.Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is unimportant. But in all important matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee. Modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the individuation process. The “mid-life crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
Before the system took over, life was a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the individuation process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” The fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the individuation process—with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the individuation process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. This is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the individuation process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the individuation process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
The oversocialized man has feelings of inferiority so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the oversocialized man. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. He may claim that his activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, but compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for moralist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of moralist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much of their behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people, or animals whom the moraliats claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But moral activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for individuation. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the moraliats would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
Yeah quoting Kaczynski doesn't make people think you're mentally ill. -
2018-12-25 at 6:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing Well no, not exactly, it is completely opposite of your point and your statement is retarded. The current state of the universe turns into the next state by virtue of the properties of the current state. But this is not the context in which pizzas exist. People deliver pizzas because people want to make money, which is provided to them in exchange for their service in delivering the pizza. If he wants to do the job as well as possible, he ought to adopt the most efficient route. To say "he will or he won't" is an autistic category error that blatantly just changes the subject. If I buy 10 packs of candy with 20 candies per pack, I reason that if the packaging is accurate and I did receive the right amount of packages, I ought to find 200 candies in my purchase. This relation of two facts is completely independent of whether or not there are in fact 200 candies, which is not going to be the case if either of my first assumptions are wrong. The point of Hume's assertion of the gap between is an ought is that there is always a hidden assumption in the relation between two "is"es.
Again, autisticslly denying that "ought" exists isn't a coherent argument. I know you are trying to parrot Sam Harris on this because you thought he said something vaguely similar one time, but he doesn't deny the existence of oughts either.
No I said the sufficiency of your moral agency is determined by other agents. You're the one who has to assert your competence as a moral agent. They are the ones that have to accept your competence.
Yeah quoting Kaczynski doesn't make people think you're mentally ill.
Everything literally happens for its own sake, not because anything "should" happen. People want to make money, not because they "should" make money, but because of the system that compels them to. -
2018-12-25 at 7:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Everything literally happens for its own sake, not because anything "should" happen.
Everything happens because it should happen. Why it should happen is because it was the way it was before and the laws it operates by necessitated that it must be a certain way next. You could call this being for its own sake. But it can also be for the sake of many other things.
For any conceivable question you could ask, you can give many different levels of answers. For any given question, you can always give the valid answer "because of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe". That is a true and valid answer, but for most questions, it's definitely not more true than a whole set of other kinds of possible answers.
The autism of your reply is in denying every answer except that one.People want to make money, not because they "should" make money, but because of the system that compels them to.
Tell me what "the system" is or fuck your mother. -
2018-12-25 at 9:18 PM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-25 at 11:09 PM UTC
-
2018-12-26 at 5:29 AM UTCOught is redundant. Is exists. Ought only exists if you decide it exists to you.
It happened. That much is provable. "It ought to have happened" is not provable. It may be formulated into an equation, but is redunadant and pointless, unless you decide it is meaningful to you, subjectively.
1=1
Nono, 2/2=2/2!
Uh, Okay. If you decide to calculate it that way, that's fine, but that equation is not in simplest form, and is redundant. -
2018-12-26 at 8:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Ought is redundant. Is exists. Ought only exists if you decide it exists to you.
It happened. That much is provable. "It ought to have happened" is not provable. It may be formulated into an equation, but is redunadant and pointless, unless you decide it is meaningful to you, subjectively.
1=1
Nono, 2/2=2/2!
Uh, Okay. If you decide to calculate it that way, that's fine, but that equation is not in simplest form, and is redundant.
Shut the fuck up. -
2018-12-26 at 10:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Ought is redundant. Is exists. Ought only exists if you decide it exists to you.
Again, for like the billionth time, if this is what you think OP, or I, or anyone else taking a moral realist position in this thread means when they say "ought" then you've completely misunderstood what's being said. -
2018-12-26 at 4:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Again, for like the billionth time, if this is what you think OP, or I, or anyone else taking a moral realist position in this thread means when they say "ought" then you've completely misunderstood what's being said.
I was replying to Loing, who replied with a command instead of a counter argument.
Plants feel pain, but in a different way than you and I are able to percieve pain. It's interesting to me that "pain" is a more heavily weighted criterion than "lives being ended".
Also, Zanick said we as in "niggas" I'm assuming, which is why there is much confusion, as I automatically count myself as part of the "we" when I click this thread. Zanick, please clarify.
If the notion is instead 'We (those who choose to set arbitrary sets of rules for ourselves because we feel like it) have a moral obligation to stop eating meat', then sure.
But to say we as niggas do, is where paramountly I and I think some others reasonably disagree. -
2018-12-26 at 6:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock ripped off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny and made him say 'spank me daddy' then gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his lackey you and the OP are one in the same you gibbering retard
definition of moral obligation: term used by those who are both mentally deficient and lacking in the ability to comprehend reality to manipulate the sane people into guilt-tripping them into conforming to their defective beliefs
kommiefornians thought they had a moral obligation to save all the creepy-crawlies in the forrest by not conducting controlled burns to prevent out of control wildfires. which resulted in billions of dollars in damage and dozens of deaths
mentally deficient floridians claimed they had a moral obligation to save the manatees. now the manatee population has grown to such an astronomical size that they have eaten literally all of the sea grass that was required to clean the local estuary while shitting out the post-digested sea grass which is creating a manatee shit storm
retards claimed that there was the moral obligation to save the alliLANNYISAFAGgators…and save the coyotes…and now peoples pets are disappearing and humans are being attacked…and eaten…on a regular basis. so often it isnt even reported in the media.
the human race has the obligation to institutionalize and lobotomize any of the mentally deficient that attempt to use the term 'moral obligation' in any fashion
moral obligation grows from within.
ethics grow from without. -
2018-12-26 at 6:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock ripped off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny and made him say 'spank me daddy' then gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his lackey 'moral obligation' is nothing more than another in a long line of newspeak terms that the mentally deficient are trying to force onto the language and thought patterns of the sane people.
merry christmas
no, its been around for a while.
https://niggasin.space/post/619321 -
2018-12-26 at 10:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Plants feel pain, but in a different way than you and I are able to percieve pain.
Why do you believe this? There doesn't seem to be much good evidence to suggest plants have any experience at all, much less experiences that can be called analogous to human pain. On the other hand it seems very difficult to deny that animals have pain-like experiences.Also, Zanick said we as in "niggas" I'm assuming, which is why there is much confusion, as I automatically count myself as part of the "we" when I click this thread. Zanick, please clarify.
If the notion is instead 'We (those who choose to set arbitrary sets of rules for ourselves because we feel like it) have a moral obligation to stop eating meat', then sure.
"We" here means moral agents -
2018-12-28 at 5:46 PM UTCObbe and DietPiano walk into a restaurant. I don't ought tell the rest of the joke because it's either funny or it isn't.
-
2018-12-28 at 5:51 PM UTCObbe walks into a bar, slaps down a fiver and says "I want whatever the laws of physics preordained I will drink".
-
2018-12-28 at 5:56 PM UTC
-
2018-12-28 at 5:57 PM UTC
-
2018-12-28 at 6:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Why not?
Who decides what the mass of an electron is?
I mean there is no should, beyond our imaginations. People imagine that this should be that, or that I should do this or shouldn't do that. But outside of our imaginations there only is what there is. Why do you believe the world should be a certain way? Why do you believe good and bad exist beyond your imagination? Why do you believe things "should" be done? Why do you believe moral obligations exist?
Nobody decided that electron should have "Y" mass. It either does or it doesn't have "Y" mass. Maybe someone imagines it should have "Y" mass, but they won't know until they measure it. How do you measure good and bad? It's all in your imagination. Who decides what "sufficient moral agency" is? -
2018-12-28 at 8:13 PM UTC
-
2018-12-28 at 9:32 PM UTC
