User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-05 at 12:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I tried but no dice.
Can you see it now?
Originally posted by Obbe That is my answer specific to the question you asked me: you have not demonstrated any moral system exists beyond imagination. Your moral conclusions might logically follow your moral framework, but your moral framework is something you are imagining and so your conclusions are only regarding your imagined framework and tell us nothing about reality. If you imagine all cows are moral agents, and if you imagine killing moral agents is always immoral, the logical conclusion of that is that you imagine killing cows is always immoral. This doesn't tell us anything about reality though, it only tells us the logical conclusion of imagining that cows are moral agents while also imagining that killing moral agents is always immoral.
That should answer your question. -
2019-01-05 at 1:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny how is it logical to consider falsehoods a 'truth value' ?
Because "truth value" is the term you use when you want to talk about a proposition's status as true or false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value
Like if you guys didn't understand what that meant you should have just said so, it would save us some time.
Originally posted by Obbe That should answer your question.
I'm going to assume that's an answer in the positive.
So the question is why? We have a framework for physical investigation. We "imagine" it in some sense, but it basically deals with what we find in the world. Why could we not have a similar moral framework in which we go out into the world and discover moral truths empirically? What is it about moral propositions that you think there's no possible way we could find their justification out in the world when we can justify "imagined" ideas like electrons by looking at the world, even though we can never directly observe them? -
2019-01-05 at 2:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny empirically? What is it about moral propositions that you think there's no possible way we could find their justification out in the world when we can justify "imagined" ideas like electrons by looking at the world, even though we can never directly observe them?
Pretty sure if you did experiments in morality you'd wind up with a fairly Darwinian and Social Darwinian morality, brah.
I'm also pretty sure that the only reason morality tends toward what a wimpy university professors want is because only wimpy university professors get to discuss morality.
What would Conan the Barbarian's morality be, and why do you imagine it'd be mistaken, and yours in any way more right? -
2019-01-05 at 2:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Pretty sure if you did experiments in morality you'd wind up with a fairly Darwinian and Social Darwinian morality, brah.
I'm also pretty sure that the only reason morality tends toward what a wimpy university professors want is because only wimpy university professors get to discuss morality.
What would Conan the Barbarian's morality be, and why do you imagine it'd be mistaken, and yours in any way more right?
Do you really believe the modern discourse which produces moral theory and objectives occurs only in a university setting and that it inevitably leads to Darwinism? That's outright silly. Ordinary people are debating the subject of morality internally and publicly all the time. We're doing it right now, on the internet. And I might be wrong here, but I believe you are the first person in this long-ass thread to reference Darwin. -
2019-01-05 at 2:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Because "truth value" is the term you use when you want to talk about a proposition's status as true or false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value
Like if you guys didn't understand what that meant you should have just said so, it would save us some time.
well whoever that coined the term is wrong.
and retarded.
its semantically wrong and impossible for a truth value to contain no truth and be called truth value just as it is wrong to refer a soy burger devoid completely of any ham
to be called a hammburger. -
2019-01-05 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny well whoever that coined the term is wrong.
and retarded.
its semantically wrong and impossible for a truth value to contain no truth and be called truth value just as it is wrong to refer a soy burger devoid completely of any ham
to be called a hammburger.
You can still ask 'what is the hamburger value of a soyburger? ' -
2019-01-05 at 2:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Do you really believe the modern discourse which produces moral theory and objectives occurs only in a university setting and that it inevitably leads to Darwinism? That's outright silly. Ordinary people are debating the subject of morality internally and publicly all the time. We're doing it right now, on the internet. And I might be wrong here, but I believe you are the first person in this long-ass thread to reference Darwin.
Do you find Darwin reprehensible? Do you incorporate Darwinism or Social Darwinism into your morality? How does vegetarianism feed into that? -
2019-01-05 at 2:45 AM UTC
-
2019-01-05 at 2:50 AM UTCHamburgers are named after a style of beef/city not ham
-
2019-01-05 at 2:58 AM UTC
-
2019-01-05 at 3:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Do you find Darwin reprehensible? Do you incorporate Darwinism or Social Darwinism into your morality? How does vegetarianism feed into that?
No, I don't find Darwin reprehensible. I just think your assumption that his theories represent anything resembling a consensus of moral inquiry is horseshit, and furthermore, I don't think they're meant to accomplish a prescriptive moral proposition unless you're content with accepting a superficial reconstitution of biological facts into subjectively contrived 'ought' statements as your morality. That said, I'm about as familiar with Darwinism as anybody else who hasn't engaged his material in the context of scholarship, so despite my inclination to dismiss outright what you're suggesting, I would be glad to see an argument for how his methodology can formulate a coherent and useful system of moral belief.
My vegetarianism is largely informed by deontological and utilitarian sources. -
2019-01-05 at 3:18 AM UTCWhen two gay men have sex how do they know whose penis will open up to accept the other person’s penis?
-
2019-01-05 at 3:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Because "truth value" is the term you use when you want to talk about a proposition's status as true or false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value
Like if you guys didn't understand what that meant you should have just said so, it would save us some time.
I'm going to assume that's an answer in the positive.
So the question is why? We have a framework for physical investigation. We "imagine" it in some sense, but it basically deals with what we find in the world. Why could we not have a similar moral framework in which we go out into the world and discover moral truths empirically? What is it about moral propositions that you think there's no possible way we could find their justification out in the world when we can justify "imagined" ideas like electrons by looking at the world, even though we can never directly observe them?
Say torpedos goddamnit. -
2019-01-05 at 3:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Do you find Darwin reprehensible? Do you incorporate Darwinism or Social Darwinism into your morality? How does vegetarianism feed into that?
You keep bringung up irrelevant points that are about 3 steps sideways and backwards from the main discussion at hand. -
2019-01-05 at 4:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Because "truth value" is the term you use when you want to talk about a proposition's status as true or false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value
Like if you guys didn't understand what that meant you should have just said so, it would save us some time.
I'm going to assume that's an answer in the positive.
So the question is why? We have a framework for physical investigation. We "imagine" it in some sense, but it basically deals with what we find in the world. Why could we not have a similar moral framework in which we go out into the world and discover moral truths empirically? What is it about moral propositions that you think there's no possible way we could find their justification out in the world when we can justify "imagined" ideas like electrons by looking at the world, even though we can never directly observe them?
Here is a quote from that wikipedia page
"Not all logical systems are truth-valuational in the sense that logical connectives may be interpreted as truth functions"
I don't care to read the whole page. -
2019-01-05 at 4:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Because "truth value" is the term you use when you want to talk about a proposition's status as true or false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value
Like if you guys didn't understand what that meant you should have just said so, it would save us some time.
I'm going to assume that's an answer in the positive.
So the question is why? We have a framework for physical investigation. We "imagine" it in some sense, but it basically deals with what we find in the world. Why could we not have a similar moral framework in which we go out into the world and discover moral truths empirically? What is it about moral propositions that you think there's no possible way we could find their justification out in the world when we can justify "imagined" ideas like electrons by looking at the world, even though we can never directly observe them?
Explain how moral truths are observed empirically. -
2019-01-05 at 12:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny well whoever that coined the term is wrong.
and retarded.
its semantically wrong and impossible for a truth value to contain no truth and be called truth value just as it is wrong to refer a soy burger devoid completely of any ham
to be called a hammburger.
It makes more sense is English bud.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Pretty sure if you did experiments in morality you'd wind up with a fairly Darwinian and Social Darwinian morality, brah.
I'm not necessarily talking about like scientific experiments, although almost any moral system would consider the findings of the natural sciences at least somewhat relevant to moral decisions e.g. hedonic utilitarians are very interested in scientific investigation of the neurology or analogous physiology of various forms of life to determine moral considerably and that's been an interesting sub-subject that's been discussed a fair bit in this thread (see: can plants feel?)
I mean "empirically" more in the sense of like philosophical empiricism. We know about things like qualia "empirically" although we don't do much science (or at least not very good science) with them. Or even more generally, we might "discover" synthetic a priori truths by reasoning carefully. I suppose that wouldn't really be an empirical investigation of the world, but then much of what we know about things like particle physics are only conclusions we arrive at by reasoning about experimental results, not things directly demonstrated by them.
I suppose the point is that there is nothing about moral propositions that removes them from the domain of empirical investigation. We have no more direct of access to moral truths than we have to electrons. We may have less justification for some or all moral propositions than we have for electrons, but I won't waste my time trying to justify a moral propositions if what is meant by that term isn't understood or there's some kind of a categorical rejection of justification of moral propositions.
Originally posted by DietPiano Explain how moral truths are observed empirically.
I'd like to fully address the subject of definitions and possibility before we get into evidence. It's generally hard or even meaningless to present evidence for mere opinions, so I'd like to be on the same page with respect to true moral propositions (if any exist) being more than a matter of what people think on the subject. There's no point in trying to justify X to you if we can't agree on what "X" means. -
2019-01-05 at 1:54 PM UTC
-
2019-01-05 at 2:04 PM UTCThere are no moral truths universally because morality is relative to each individual. This is also why it is redundant.
-
2019-01-05 at 3:01 PM UTCThe entire ponlint of society is to break out of Darwinism, lul.
