User Controls
is everyone evil
-
2015-08-17 at 5:31 PM UTC
Oh no, I meant that your system seems to value everyone's happiness equally, ideally. So, for example, an action that gave Hitler more utility compared to a monk that had devoted their life to charity should be favored.
Sure, if Hitler were rendered causally inert then there's no a priori further reason to spite him (although I don't deny the legitimacy of punishment as a deterrent, so it issue isn't black on white). Like if you were going to extend the life of the monk vs. hitler and he were still heading the nazi party then of course any utilitarian would choose the monk, the point is the total value of an action is what needs to be considered.
There's nothing inconsistent in that, despite your meaningless slurs.By the way, Lanny, do you believe that people should be legally compelled, through force, to care for their parents, who likely cared for them for decades among your peers, and invested enormous time, effort, and resources into them? Then why should they be legally obligated to care for perfect strangers?
Case 1: You force them to labor directly for their benefit.
Case 2: You force them to transfer wealth to you, which was produced through labor, to care for perfect strangers
I don't think a person is obligated to care for their own parents per se (seeing as some people may not be able to), but I do think that people who are too old to work or don't need to work anymore are owed a certain quality of life by the society as a whole, in so far as that society is able to care for them. While your mind may boggle at notion of helping perfect strangers I think most people are fairly well acquainted with, at least, the idea of charity -
2015-08-17 at 6:20 PM UTC
I don't think a person is obligated to care for their own parents per se (seeing as some people may not be able to), but I do think that people who are too old to work or don't need to work anymore are owed a certain quality of life by the society as a whole, in so far as that society is able to care for them. While your mind may boggle at notion of helping perfect strangers I think most people are fairly well acquainted with, at least, the idea of charity
Of course and i support charity 100%, it just isn't charity if it's enforced by the government.
-
2015-08-18 at 12:37 AM UTC
Fuck the rich.
fuck you
(i'm not rich)
I forgot what we were even talking about -
2015-08-18 at 2:05 AM UTC
Of course and i support charity 100%, it just isn't charity if it's enforced by the government.
Fair enough. I should have said "While your mind may boggle at notion of helping perfect strangers I think most people are fairly well acquainted with, at least, the idea of obligations to others". You think we're obligated not to throw children into bodies of water, I think we're obligated to pull them out. Minimally the idea of having a duty towards strangers should be non-surprising for everyone involved. -
2015-08-18 at 2:26 AM UTC
Fair enough. I should have said "While your mind may boggle at notion of helping perfect strangers I think most people are fairly well acquainted with, at least, the idea of obligations to others". You think we're obligated not to throw children into bodies of water, I think we're obligated to pull them out. Minimally the idea of having a duty towards strangers should be non-surprising for everyone involved.
Even at risk to yourself? Would you like that, being the pussy that you are (you've said this yourself, I'm not ascribing it to you)? There's always a cost. And by duty, do you mean you should be legally compelled to and suffer consequences if you fail to, or just an unbinding moral obligation? -
2015-08-18 at 3:23 AM UTC
Even at risk to yourself? Would you like that, being the pussy that you are (you've said this yourself, I'm not ascribing it to you)? There's always a cost.
Yes, even at risk to yourself, there's literally nothing we could require of a person that didn't put them at some level of risk for some level of loss. NAP asks us to do something at risk to ourselves (things like pre-emptive war are prohibited), it hardly seems like a damning requirement for a moral principle.And by duty, do you mean you should be legally compelled to and suffer consequences if you fail to, or just an unbinding moral obligation?
The latter, although almost everyone thinks there's a subset of your total moral duties that ought to be enforced by law, as do I. -
2015-08-18 at 4:03 AM UTC
Fair enough. I should have said "While your mind may boggle at notion of helping perfect strangers I think most people are fairly well acquainted with, at least, the idea of obligations to others". You think we're obligated not to throw children into bodies of water, I think we're obligated to pull them out..
That's a very apt way of putting it and i agree but i'd more than likely pull a drowning child out of a body of water regardless, lol. -
2015-08-18 at 4:53 PM UTC
i'd more than likely pull a drowning child out of a body of water regardless, lol.
I bet you would indeed
-
2015-08-18 at 5:12 PM UTC
I bet you would indeed
Mmm, i didn't wanna' say it but bonus points if it's a loli.
-
2019-06-10 at 11:03 PM UTC
-
2019-06-10 at 11:07 PM UTCAccording to Milgram's electro-shock experiments, everyone may as well be evil, because they'll brown-nose to authority figures to the point of killing another person if ordered to. That's two thirds of people, regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality. I'm part of the one third that wouldn't. I would only kill people for my own reasons.
-
2019-06-10 at 11:27 PM UTC
-
2019-06-10 at 11:59 PM UTCEvil is opinionated.
-
2019-06-11 at 12:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by The Boobyverse X = X 1 = 0 the contents of one's mind. i can't tell if everyone thinks of sick shit and the morality aspect is ignoring it, or the aspect of morality is what prevents those ideas from forming
I more inclined to say that morality doesnt prevent one’s thoughts from happening. Moreover, morality rather prevents one’s thoughts from becoming actions.
