User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-24 at 1:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I do know that's false
It literally isn't. But go ahead and change my mind, explain how what's good for the lion is also what's good for the gazelle.what is beneficial for the lion is not what's necessarily what is morally good.
"What's good" is relative, not absolute. If there is no lion to think something is good, that something isn't good or bad... it's just something.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.
This argument started when I said "morality is relative" and you decided you had to change my mind. I have no idea what Harris' point is now, and I had no idea what Harris point was when I said morality is relative.
Morality is relative not absolute. There is no "absolute good" because that would make exactly as much sense as "absolute quick". -
2019-04-24 at 2:41 AM UTCo look, immorality struck again when honest opinions of good, hardworking honest posters' post in this thread are being wiped off clean again.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-24 at 4:20 AM UTCRoses are red
Violets are neat
Cock is the meat
That Lanny will eatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-24 at 11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It literally isn't. But go ahead and change my mind, explain how what's good for the lion is also what's good for the gazelle.
No, fuck you. Lions and gazelles are amoral animals and morality does not apply to them.
Present an actual moral example."What's good" is relative, not absolute. If there is no lion to think something is good, that something isn't good or bad… it's just something.
What's good is absolute and deducible from logic, as already demonstrated for a cock on the ass.This argument started when I said "morality is relative" and you decided you had to change my mind. I have no idea what Harris' point is now, and I had no idea what Harris point was when I said morality is relative.
Stop lying. I said much like the relativity of speed, the moral fact of the matter is perfectly objective.Morality is relative not absolute. There is no "absolute good" because that would make exactly as much sense as "absolute quick".
Nobody said there's an absolute good, just that there are absolute moral principles. For example there's no such thing as an absolutely good cock in the ass but there's a dialectically absolute principle, in that example, of consentz derived from the very premises of their basis of preference in the first place. -
2019-04-24 at 12:15 PM UTCWhat's good is relative as demonstrated in a variety of examples already. You already know morality is relative, as what's good for the buttpirate can be bad for the normie but there is nothing absolutely good or bad about whatever those two are considering to be good or bad. If you are not arguing that there is an absolute goodness then you're not disagreeing with me.
-
2019-04-24 at 12:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What's good is relative as demonstrated in a variety of examples already.
How fast something is moving is relative to the frame of reference but it's a real value that is invariably and uniquely translatable to all reference frames. What is good is analogous to that: there is no such thing as absolute 5mph but there is a fact of the matter regarding the speed of an object that is perfectly translatable, and it's based on the axioms by which we define speed in the first place.You already know morality is relative, as what's good for the buttpirate can be bad for the normie but there is nothing absolutely good or bad about whatever those two are considering to be good or bad. If you are not arguing that there is an absolute goodness then you're not disagreeing with me.
What's good for the buttpirate and the boring person are applications of the exact same thing, as already demonstrated. -
2019-04-24 at 2:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator How fast something is moving is relative to the frame of reference but it's a real value that is invariably and uniquely translatable to all reference frames. What is good is analogous to that: there is no such thing as absolute 5mph but there is a fact of the matter regarding the speed of an object that is perfectly translatable, and it's based on the axioms by which we define speed in the first place.
Someone's goodness or badness is relative to their frame of reference, but their real value is something objective and transferable to all frames of reference. Speed is analogous to this: what is quick or slow is relative, but there is a real and objective value we refer to as speed which is transferable to other frames of reference. However this objective speed is not objectively quick or slow, similarly the person's objective value is not objectively good or bad. -
2019-04-24 at 3:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Someone's goodness or badness is relative to their frame of reference, but their real value is something objective and transferable to all frames of reference. Speed is analogous to this: what is quick or slow is relative, but there is a real and objective value we refer to as speed which is transferable to other frames of reference. However this objective speed is not objectively quick or slow, similarly the person's objective value is not objectively good or bad.
No, the standard by which goodness or badness is judged, is absolute. The analogous example would be that if something is moving at a greater speed than you then it is faster, if it's moving at a slower speed than you then it is slower. You have a value and apply it to the fact of your speed and the object's speed in a given reference frame. However, regardless of the reference frame, the object will be going faster than you in that direction in every reference frame. That's why it's faster than you regardless of the reference frame. It might be slower than a person moving at any even greater rate, but that is judged by the same standard.
This is no different than the 8 inch cock in the ass being good for one person and not for the other: both are derived from the same principle. You literally cannot make either assertion without these assumptions. The fact that the speed is relative to the reference frame doesn't change the fact that something is objectively faster than the other, regardless of reference frame. -
2019-04-24 at 4:11 PM UTC
-
2019-04-24 at 4:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You're wrong. Judgement of somethings goodness or badness is relative, exactly like the way we judge quickness or slowness.
The standard by which it is determined is absolute, exactly like the way we judge quickness or slowness. I've already expanded this like 18 different ways. Please offer a moral example that illustrates your assertion. -
2019-04-24 at 4:40 PM UTCYou agree that somethings speed is not objectively quick or slow, you agree that quickness or slowness is relative. There may be some value which is objective (speed), but that value is neither objectively quick nor slow. By the same logic someone's goodness or badness is also relative, while there may be some value (?) which is objective, but that value is neither objectively good nor bad.
-
2019-04-24 at 4:55 PM UTCWhether something is fast or slow relative to the speed of another object is 100% objectively determinable.
In any reference frame, speed of object 1 and speed of object 2 give you the answer. If the speed is greater, it's faster, if the speed lower then it's slower. How are you still not grasping this very basic concept? What doesn't exist is absolute speed, just relative speed, but that doesn't stop us from objectively determining which object is slow or fast. It's derived from an objective general principle that is applied to the special case.
That's exactly how good and bad is. For example with cock, if you don't want a cock in the ass then a cock in the ass is bad and vice versa by the very premise of your example. It translates to both frames of reference. -
2019-04-24 at 5:36 PM UTC
For example with cock, if you don't want a cock in the ass then a cock in the ass is bad and vice versa
There's a word for that: relative. -
2019-04-24 at 5:40 PM UTC
-
2019-04-24 at 5:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The standard by which that's determined in either case is not relative.
This entire time I've been saying that the goodness/badness or quickness/slowness of something is relative, but that there are objective values we can measure and use to "make a case", and obviously those objective values are not objectively good/bad/quick/slow. -
2019-04-24 at 7:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe This entire time I've been saying that the goodness/badness or quickness/slowness of something is relative, but that there are objective values we can measure and use to "make a case", and obviously those objective values are not objectively good/bad/quick/slow.
Holy shit are you legitimately retarded? Of course whether something is fast or slow is relative to a given frame of reference, but that is literally objectively determinable and translateable to any frame of reference. In your example of cock in the ass, I already demonstrated that the moral fact was the standard by which whether it is good or bad is parallel to the concept of slow as fast as well as the objective measures of speed.
You are literally conceding my argument over and over while insisting it's not the case. -
2019-04-24 at 8:18 PM UTC
-
2019-04-24 at 8:21 PM UTC
-
2019-04-24 at 8:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You literally cannot have a truly relative concept that isn't nested in an absolute framework.
This seems counter intuitive, Every individual has a different perspective... there is no one "above" so to speak taking a birds eye view of the various dealings and actions of people. Vested interests abound but somewhere there's an "objective" position? I don't agree with moral relativism though.... it's either absolute or non-existing. -
2019-04-24 at 9:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Nil This seems counter intuitive, Every individual has a different perspective… there is no one "above" so to speak taking a birds eye view of the various dealings and actions of people. Vested interests abound but somewhere there's an "objective" position? I don't agree with moral relativism though…. it's either absolute or non-existing.
In a rigorous logical sense, there's no such thing as an objective morality: you cannot derive a moral ought from any set of "is" facts. You have to include an ought in your axioms, whatever logical structure you want to set for your moral system, to say what you should do in a given situation.
What I'm saying is that whatever you derive your moral oughts from, if you set it then you can dialectically resolve it to either prove it's logically inconsistent/incoherent/doesn't preserve our moral intuitions (i.e. your initial ought or logical structure is not actually a good description of your basis for morality) or it will neatly fit into a resolvable logical meta structure where we can definitively hammer it down to what is or isn't right.
So yes, dialectically there is always a moral fact of the matter, whether we know it or not: whatever ought you define in your axioms, whatever axioms you define, if they're logically consistent then it can be logically resolved.
