User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-28 at 3:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER I'm totally on board with the theory that good and bad and it's gradations thereof, are all subjective with no absolute quality to either. When you get into the implications and the logical conclusions thereof, that's where you run into a problem. The logical conclusion to not killing shit we didn't need to, is populations might fall out of equilibrium, and there'd be some chaos until shit stabilized. The logical conclusion of judging that another sentient life form is unworthy of your consideration, and subject to destruction for your foodstuffs…that gets a bit more weird.
Idk I still eat meat, but I acknowledge that not doing that is something to strive for. If I were hunting and killing my own food, I'd almost feel better about it. But the cold, uncalculated judgement that has to be present in cases of factory farming and meat production….it causes a fuckton of cognitive dissonance. And usually that's a red flag. In any other context we'd think it monstrous. (And we do- i.e. Yulin, etc)
/pedantic douchery
Everything is always in equalibrium. -
2019-01-28 at 4:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER I mean I sort of get it. Killing something- while natural- falls a bit outside of subjectivity though. If killing things is okay, why is it sometimes not okay (legally). Why do most people have a gut reaction to seeing something die?
Killing a thing is not inherently good or bad or even "ok". In reality killing a thing is killing a thing.
Whatever value we assign to the act is a value we assigned to that act. Sometimes the system deems these acts acceptable, and sometimes it does not. Sometimes we agree with the system, and sometimes we do not. The reason people have a gut reaction is instinctual/behavioral. Different people will have different reactions, for different reasons. But whatever we imagine is irrelevant to the system. -
2019-01-28 at 4:20 PM UTCNot necessarily
E: @ the homie DietPotatoes -
2019-01-28 at 4:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I thought you have been attempting to make that case but I guess you're really just wasting time.
I've already told you repeatedly that we'll need a shared understanding of what is meant by "moral obligation" before I'll try to make the case for their existence. You've consistently sidetracked that discussion by insisting morals are imaginary or non-objective because you insist morals are just opinions. That is you take the term to mean "opinions" and then act like is somehow damning with respect to my position. You're the one wasting time here.
Originally posted by Obbe In the future there will be a "cure" for evil. Someone like Lanny will decide what behaviors are unacceptable and through a combination of genetic modifications, psychological manipulation and forced medication, human beings will be incapable of "acting out".
Why don't you call me a terrorist too while you're in the mood to jerk off to tired biggoted Sam Harris logic. -
2019-01-28 at 4:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I've already told you repeatedly that we'll need a shared understanding of what is meant by "moral obligation" before I'll try to make the case for their existence. You've consistently sidetracked that discussion by insisting morals are imaginary or non-objective because you insist morals are just opinions. That is you take the term to mean "opinions" and then act like is somehow damning with respect to my position. You're the one wasting time here.
Why don't you call me a terrorist too while you're in the mood to jerk off to tired biggoted Sam Harris logic.
I understand what you mean by the term, I don't agree with it. If you continue to assert that morals are more than opinions without giving us any reasoning, we can continue to reject your assertion. I've already explained why morals are based in opinion. -
2019-01-28 at 5:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I understand what you mean by the term, I don't agree with it. If you continue to assert that morals are more than opinions without giving us any reasoning, we can continue to reject your assertion.
You've confused definition with assertion of existence.I've already explained why morals are based in opinion.
I don't really think you have. All I've gotten is "no objective measure" and "people disagree". The former is flatly wrong, and the latter is irrelevant. -
2019-01-28 at 5:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe In the future there will be a "cure" for evil. Someone like Lanny will decide what behaviors are unacceptable and through a combination of genetic modifications, psychological manipulation and forced medication, human beings will be incapable of "acting out".
because in the future man can reproduce with another man ? -
2019-01-28 at 6:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You've confused definition with assertion of existence.
I don't really think you have. All I've gotten is "no objective measure" and "people disagree". The former is flatly wrong, and the latter is irrelevant.
Not really. I don't agree with your definition, and I reject your assertion. And there's not really much for me to explain - different people can look at the exact same objective data and come to different conclusions about the goodness or badness of that data; the data itself doesn't tell us whether it is objectively good or bad, and there doesn't appear to be any way for us to conclude whether the data is objectively good or bad.
Unless you care to explain why you disagree. -
2019-01-28 at 6:51 PM UTCIf I'm understanding correctly, you are asserting, Lanny, that utilitarians believe pleasure and it's production is good, and pain and it's production is bad. I disagree, as you nor anyone else knows this to inherently be true, or that is has an inherent truth value, lest you have divine evidence that that is so. If you disagree, present your evidence.
Pain and pleasure are meaningless without reference to the other. -
2019-01-28 at 7:34 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Originally posted by DietPiano If I'm understanding correctly, you are asserting, Lanny, that utilitarians believe pleasure and it's production is good, and pain and it's production is bad. I disagree, as you nor anyone else knows this to inherently be true, or that is has an inherent truth value, lest you have divine evidence that that is so. If you disagree, present your evidence.
Pain and pleasure are meaningless without reference to the other.
Utilitarianism is a childish and naive philosophy.
It's basic pretense is that a planet full of cockroaches swimming in cockroach heroin is the ultimate good, as it maximises pleasure and minimises pain.
I suspect most utilitarians would prefer a planet of diverse beings, from multiple species - if possible without any major misery, but also fully actualised, and maximising their control and understanding of nature, culture, technology and philosophy.
They just lack the vocabulary - or the balls to articulate such an idea. -
2019-01-28 at 9:04 PM UTCI guess it comes down to whether or not you believe life has inherent value
-
2019-01-28 at 9:06 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
-
2019-01-28 at 10:21 PM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 10:25 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
-
2019-01-28 at 11:25 PM UTC
-
2019-01-28 at 11:32 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Originally posted by cupocheer Absolutely NOT!
It is highly immoral and runs it's course whether one likes it or NOT!
The great thing about immoral agents is that they're easily constrained.
Though apparently they spend at least the next 6 million years complaining about the harsh chemical agents used to clean their clothes after a particularly nasty lice outbreak.
Make sense of that.
In addition to the 6 million deliberately killed and yada yada, invisible graves that I don't doubt exist at all, as it's illegal to do so, I'll believe whatever you tell me to believe, no problem at all.
Oy Vey Man's Inhumanity to Man!!!
See, I'm a whore too. -
2019-01-28 at 11:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe life has inherent value
I don't believe value or meaning is something the world inherently has. I think value/meaning is something humans apply to the world, and different people will apply different values or meanings to life.
Also the world will eventually take everything from you and it will eat you, so you might as well take a bite out of the world too.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-01-30 at 4:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe And there's not really much for me to explain - different people can look at the exact same objective data and come to different conclusions about the goodness or badness of that data; the data itself doesn't tell us whether it is objectively good or bad, and there doesn't appear to be any way for us to conclude whether the data is objectively good or bad.
If you thought people looking at objective data and coming to different conclusions is what damns morality then you'd also think the natural sciences and mathematics were simply imaginary. In fact it's difficult to imagine any sort of human pursuit where people don't draw different conclusions from the same data. This has never been a major obstacle in developing human understanding of the world
Originally posted by DietPiano If I'm understanding correctly, you are asserting, Lanny, that utilitarians believe pleasure and it's production is good, and pain and it's production is bad.
Well not quite, that's true for hedonic utilitarians. Maximization of utility is what utilitarians hold to be the aim of moral action. People disagree about what exactly constitutes utility. So just as a point of contrast, preference utilitarians think utility is preference satisfaction is utility, so they can say someone who willingly seeks out suffering and gets no pleasure from doing so isn't strictly doing something wrong, while a hedonistic utilitarian is.I disagree, as you nor anyone else knows this to inherently be true, or that is has an inherent truth value, lest you have divine evidence that that is so. If you disagree, present your evidence.
Why do you think no one knows that?Pain and pleasure are meaningless without reference to the other.
OK, but that isn't really a problem for any kind of utilitarian.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life Utilitarianism is a childish and naive philosophy.
It's basic pretense is that a planet full of cockroaches swimming in cockroach heroin is the ultimate good, as it maximises pleasure and minimises pain.
I suspect most utilitarians would prefer a planet of diverse beings, from multiple species - if possible without any major misery, but also fully actualised, and maximising their control and understanding of nature, culture, technology and philosophy.
They just lack the vocabulary - or the balls to articulate such an idea.
No one actually thinks heroin cockroach planet would be good though, nor is anyone committed to it. There's a long literature on varieties of pleasure (i.e. it's obvious to nearly everyone that some things are more capable of pleasure of suffering and pleasure than others, humans have a large capacity to suffer or experience pleasure, jellyfish less so) and notions of utility, or even pleasure, beyond mere dopamine release.
I don't think anyone lacks the vocabulary so much as you lack any exposure to utilitarian thought. -
2019-01-30 at 4:47 AM UTCIf you do...you are stronger than i
-
2019-01-30 at 8:41 AM UTCThis is probably just a high idea- but Lanny...say someone were able to engineer chickens to grow to essentially what they are now, only they wouldnt have brains, and theyd be immobile. Basically a mammalian sea sponge with feathers. Would you feel morally justified in killing and eating it then? Does your understanding hinge on the experience of pain, or the end of life or....? idk.
Consider this my retarded contribution for the sake of discussion.
