User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-22 at 10:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Pay attention. The reason why is that 0.63 miles per hour could be quick or slow depending on if you ask the tortoise or the hare. It is the same reason a 6 " cock could be long or short depending on who you ask. Same reason gazelle murder could be good for the lion but bad for the gazelle. I think you already know why - the reason is that all these things are relative.
0.63 miles per hour is objectively 0.63 miles per hour. This speed is not considered quick nor slow unless we are comparing it to something else.
Similarly, <some objective measurement> is objectively <some objective measurement>. That measurement is not considered good nor bad unless we are comparing it to something else.
Goodness and badness are analogous to quickness and slowness. Goodness and badness are relative.
You haven't established that this logic transfers to morality, just proclaim it so. Can you give me an actual moral example? -
2019-04-22 at 10:59 PM UTCI gave you an example. An 8 " cock in the ass might be a bad thing to a normal person, but a cocksucker like you would consider it to be good.
-
2019-04-22 at 11:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I gave you an example. An 8 " cock in the ass might be a bad thing to a normal person, but a cocksucker like you would consider it to be good.
Keep walking down this road: whether or not it is morally good to put an 8" cock in someone's ass would come from what? Let's say just for the sake of argument that it comes from whether or not you want it there (consent). If you don't want an 8" cock in your ass, it is morally wrong to put it in there. Conversely if getting an 8" cock in the ass makes them happy it is morally good to put it in there (make the necessary assumptions about the cocksman's consent in both cases).
The actual moral fact is respecting your consent (for example). That framework translates perfectly to both frames of reference to give you the moral fact of the matter. You literally can't make your statement without this assumption. Both points of reference are simply special cases of the general principle of consent. Respecting your consent is good, disrespecting your consent is bad.
QED. -
2019-04-22 at 11:28 PM UTCWe can go back to torturing analogies if you want now.
-
2019-04-23 at 1:10 AM UTCBump
-
2019-04-23 at 1:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Keep walking down this road: whether or not it is morally good to put an 8" cock in someone's ass would come from what?
Whether it is good or bad is relative to your preference. The key part here is that "an 8" cock in your ass" is neither objectively good or bad - this would make as much sense as 0.63 miles per hour being objectively quick or slow. Something can only be quick or slow in relation to something else. Just like a cock in your ass can only be good or bad in relation to your preference for a cock in your ass. Objectively, a cock in your ass is a cock in your ass. -
2019-04-23 at 1:19 AM UTC
-
2019-04-23 at 1:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator So the principle is respecting your preference, like I said: respecting your preference = moral and vice versa.
Not even close. Who says respecting your preference is objectively good? I'm sure there are many who see respecting preferences as a good thing. But there are also those who see respecting preferences as a bad thing. -
2019-04-23 at 1:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Not even close. Who says respecting your preference is objectively good?
I just used your own setup that one considers a cock in the ass good and the other considers a cock in the ass bad. Whatever system you use to determine either is irrelevant.I'm sure there are many who see respecting preferences as a good thing. But there are also those who see respecting preferences as a bad thing.
Preferring to not respect preference is internally contradictory. That is an analytic truth, much like mathematics.
Similarly, 1+1=2 whether or not you believe it. -
2019-04-23 at 2:29 AM UTCYou took the idea that some people prefer cock in their ass and some prefer it not in their ass and somehow arrived at the conclusion that respecting preferences is objectively good. Your reasoning is not existent and your conclusion doesn't make sense - objectively good makes as much sense as objectively quick. Or objectively up. You claim to have used my system but I didn't create anything - some people just like cocks in theirs asses and some people don't. There's nothing objectively good or bad about that. The goodness or badness of it is relative. The topic of consent is irrelevant to this point.
-
2019-04-23 at 3:19 AM UTCNo, I said we can take preference, just for the sake of argument, as how they are derived. You already admitted this. Your job was to provide an example of irreconcilable moral positions. I showed that both examples you gave are derived from one and the same moral position, i.e. it doesn't establish your claim. Pick a less shit example.
I hadn't even gotten to my part yet. Go ahead and choose a different method for them to be derived, and/or a different example. I'll reconcile them all the same with a completely analytic framework. It's just logical algebra with moral variables. You might as well be denying math. -
2019-04-23 at 12:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, I said we can take preference, just for the sake of argument, as how they are derived. You already admitted this. Your job was to provide an example of irreconcilable moral positions. I showed that both examples you gave are derived from one and the same moral position, i.e. it doesn't establish your claim. Pick a less shit example.
My only "job" here is to point out that moral positions are relative. The fact that some people think a cock in their ass is good and some people think it is bad has nothing to do with your conclusion that "respecting preferences is objectively good". You jumped to that conclusion. I never claimed that two moral positions are irreconcilable - only that they are relative to a person's own preference. You've admitted this fact. -
2019-04-23 at 1:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe My only "job" here is to point out that moral positions are relative.
No, your job is to establish that it being relative means it's not objective. I already showed you your example doesn't establish that.The fact that some people think a cock in their ass is good and some people think it is bad has nothing to do with your conclusion that "respecting preferences is objectively good". You jumped to that conclusion.
I literally didn't say that anywhere. Just because you lost the argument doesn't mean you have to lie.I never claimed that two moral positions are irreconcilable - only that they are relative to a person's own preference. You've admitted this fact.
I showed that the very fact that they have preferences is objectively reconcilable. This is because whatever your subjective preferences are derived from a deductively true framework i.e. they are as objective as maths. This works regardless of your preferences or how you derive your personal morals.
Go ahead, offer another example. We can do this forever. -
2019-04-23 at 4:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, your job is to establish that it being relative means it's not objective. I already showed you your example doesn't establish that.
I literally didn't say that anywhere. Just because you lost the argument doesn't mean you have to lie.
I showed that the very fact that they have preferences is objectively reconcilable. This is because whatever your subjective preferences are derived from a deductively true framework i.e. they are as objective as maths. This works regardless of your preferences or how you derive your personal morals.
Go ahead, offer another example. We can do this forever.
My job is only to point out that moral positions are relative. Moral positions are not objectively good or bad, as you already know what can be good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. Similarly a turtle might objectively travel at 0.63 miles per hour but that is neither objectively quick nor objectively slow.
If you aren't claiming anything is objectively good then we dont disagree.
No, we cannot do this forever. Maybe you can, but I am losing interest. -
2019-04-23 at 6:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe My job is only to point out that moral positions are relative.
All you've demonstrated is specific applications of an absolute principle. No different than the translatability of relative speed to any reference frame.Moral positions are not objectively good or bad, as you already know what can be good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
You've offered zero substantiation for this aside from proving my point. What's good for the loom is not necessarily morally good, and vice versaSimilarly a turtle might objectively travel at 0.63 miles per hour but that is neither objectively quick nor objectively slow.
It's just a special application of the principle that moving at a greater speed than yours is fast and vice versa.If you aren't claiming anything is objectively good then we dont disagree.
Do you disagree with 1+1=2? How objective do you feel that is?No, we cannot do this forever. Maybe you can, but I am losing my ability to continue my retarded sophistry
Fixed -
2019-04-23 at 6:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What's good for the loom is not necessarily morally good, and vice versa
"What's good" is always relative. Just like what is quick. There is no objective goodness or quickness. Speed can be objectively measured but a specific speed is not objectively quick or slow. Similarly maybe your loom needs 3 meters of yarn but but that isn't objectively good or bad. It's goodness or badness is relative to something else. Prove it isn't. -
2019-04-23 at 7:06 PM UTCand time is relative and alcohol and coffee are morally bad to utilitarians,
DESTRUCTION OF FOOD CROPS AND PROPAGATION OF MARIJUANA PLANTS ON PRIME FOOD RAISING GROUNS IN A WORLD WITH STARVATION
EXPLAIN HOW YOUR MORAL SYSTEM ACCEPTS THAT -
2019-04-23 at 10:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe "What's good" is always relative. Just like what is quick. There is no objective goodness or quickness. Speed can be objectively measured but a specific speed is not objectively quick or slow. Similarly maybe your loom needs 3 meters of yarn but but that isn't objectively good or bad. It's goodness or badness is relative to something else. Prove it isn't.
"What's good" is absolute and dialectically deducible from logic, and whether or not a case is good from the application of the deduced principle to the relative point of reference. I already showed this from the case of cock in the ass.
Here is the point where I reveal the funny part, and why I'm continuing to entertain this farce of a discussion: I'm literally taking Sam Harris's position 1:1 from his book "The Moral Landscape" and following his line of "there are no oughts, only is" to apply it to this conversation. I primarily just wanted to confirm that you don't actually understand his position, nor do you understand how you have to relinquish one or the other.
Where it goes from this point is your choice. -
2019-04-24 at 12:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator "What's good" is absolute
If that were true, saying "what's good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle" would be false. But you known that is not false.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I'm literally taking Sam Harris's position 1:1 from his book "The Moral Landscape" and following his line of "there are no oughts, only is" to apply it to this conversation. I primarily just wanted to confirm that you don't actually understand his position, nor do you understand how you have to relinquish one or the other.
I haven't read that book, I don't know what Sam's position is on morality, and I dont know why you think I care. I read one of his books, that doesn't mean I know anything else about him or care to. Seems irrelevant to our discussion here. Your job right now is to convince me that goodness and badness is not like quickness or slowness. Change my mind.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Where it goes from this point is your choice.
ok there morpheus -
2019-04-24 at 1:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If that were true, saying "what's good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle" would be false. But you known that is not false.
I do know that's false, and I know you are being retarded because what is beneficial for the lion is not what's necessarily what is morally good. For example both creatures probably don't want to be killed. You can translate that to either the frame of reference of the lion or the gazelle.I haven't read that book, I don't know what Sam's position is on morality, and I dont know why you think I care. I read one of his books, that doesn't mean I know anything else about him or care to. Seems irrelevant to our discussion here. Your job right now is to convince me that goodness and badness is not like quickness or slowness. Change my mind.
You quite literally based this entire retarded argument on asserting his point incorrectly and not understanding what would follow from it. I'm telling you exactly what happens when you actually apply it.
