User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 9:51 PM UTCObbe, do you have anything resembling a decision framework for a community within your subjective view of morality? I don't see how this can be possible, as yours seems to represent sheer anarchism without a moral leg to stand on.
-
2018-06-27 at 9:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Obbe, do you have anything resembling a decision framework for a community within your subjective view of morality? I don't see how this can be possible, as yours seems to represent sheer anarchism without a moral leg to stand on.
I guess I think society should base decisions on what is best for society and not on what is perceived as moral or immoral.
But I never claimed to have a "decision framework". -
2018-06-27 at 10:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I guess I think society should base decisions on what is best for society and not on what is perceived as moral or immoral.
But I never claimed to have a "decision framework".
How do you weigh what is good for a society if your conception of moral value is derived from the notion that there are as many moralities as there are people? -
2018-06-27 at 10:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick How do you weigh what is good for a society if your conception of moral value is that there are as many moralities as there are people?
To use eating meat as an example, I suppose instead of asking if eating meat is moral or immoral society should investigate whether or not it is effective, efficient, sustainable, etc. You know, variables that we can actually measure and demonstrate with evidence instead of opinion. -
2018-06-27 at 10:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think it's a language thing. Kind of like how you think nothing is subjective, yet there is still a definition for that word in the dictionary.
Non-sequiturI wouldn't call your system "morality"
It is a consistent, generalizable system to determine how one should behave, and it creates a logical standard for how to determine what is or is not bad for any agent that wants to apply it. What do you even think a moral system is if this doesn't count?or even "your" system…
It is "my" moral system because it's the moral system I adopt. I didn't claim to invent it. That's a retarded interjection either way.it's really just "how things are".
Do people universally adhere to this system as the basis for their decision making? I dont even know wtf your point is, but you're refusing to acknowledge a consistent, generalizable moral system derived from pure logic.
Originally posted by Obbe I still say morality is relative and really is irrelevant to most issues.
Why? Why do you insist on being a shit retard and refuse to actually lay out your reasoning? You have zero rational defence for the view that all morality is relative, and you have zero rational arguments for why it's irrelevant.I think you're saying the same things, just in a really convoluted way so that you can sniff your own farts and get a boner over it.
Sounds like you're butthurt because you cannot deny this objective basis for morality. -
2018-06-27 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe To use eating meat as an example, I suppose instead of asking if eating meat is moral or immoral society should investigate whether or not it is effective, efficient, sustainable, etc. You know, variables that we can actually measure and demonstrate with evidence instead of opinion.
What if the people in your society (let's assume you're a legislator or something) have differing opinions regarding a body of conflicting evidence? I don't think this is unlikely, I think it's rather typical. How does an amoral agent tasked with yielding the best possible outcome for a society determine what that means in the context of competing values and ideas? Assuming you aren't operating a totalitarian state, which I think would require you commit to a different moral theory altogether, but please correct me if you object. -
2018-06-27 at 10:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe To use eating meat as an example, I suppose instead of asking if eating meat is moral or immoral society should investigate whether or not it is effective, efficient, sustainable, etc. You know, variables that we can actually measure and demonstrate with evidence instead of opinion.
Okay, say we investigate all these variables. Lets say that it is 100% proven that any meat consumption by humans after 365 years from today will lead to the obliteration of Earth.
Now what should we do? -
2018-06-27 at 10:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick What if the people in your society (let's assume you're a legislator or something) have differing opinions regarding a body of conflicting evidence? I don't think this is unlikely, I think it's rather typical. How does an amoral agent tasked with yielding the best possible outcome for a society determine what that means in the context of competing values and ideas? Assuming you aren't operating a totalitarian state, which I think would require you commit to a different moral theory altogether, but please correct me if you object.
I don't know zanick. I guess they would jusy try their best? Why do you think morality is the best way to make decisions? It isn't objective. -
2018-06-27 at 10:22 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 10:22 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 10:25 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't know zanick. I guess they would jusy try their best? Why do you think morality is the best way to make decisions? It isn't objective.
So, to be clear, you want to dispose of our moral systems, which have answers on how to handle this common problem, in favor of yours, which has none and doesn't believe it's possible to establish a framework for figuring them out?
Originally posted by Obbe Why did you edit your post from 1 year to 365 years?
Does that change your answer? -
2018-06-27 at 10:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick So, to be clear, you want to dispose of our moral systems, which have answers on how to handle this common problem, in favor of yours, which has none and doesn't believe it's possible to establish a framework for figuring them out?
If our moral systems had the answers to these problems we wouldn't be having this discussion. Morality doesn't give us truth it gives us opinions. -
2018-06-27 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If our moral systems had the answers to these problems we wouldn't be having this discussion. Morality doesn't give us truth it gives us opinions.
On the contrary, every system of morality has answers to any number of problems. They aren't all the best according to one another, but rejecting them all as conjecture is possibly the weakest position you could have. If you have to make decisions concerning the well being of others, you have to possess a consistent moral system. Eventually, you'll just end up resting blindly on the tenets of act utilitarianism and think you're more evolved for it while calling it subjectivism. -
2018-06-27 at 10:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think it's a language thing. Kind of like how you think nothing is subjective, yet there is still a definition for that word in the dictionary.
I wouldn't call your system "morality", or even "your" system… it's really just "how things are".
I still say morality is relative and really is irrelevant to most issues. I think you're saying the same things, just in a really convoluted way so that you can sniff your own farts and get a boner over it.
So it's kind of like the determinism vs free will debate in that we both effectively agreed but our definitions of free will make it seem as though we don't, even though for all intents and purposes, we do. -
2018-06-27 at 10:52 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 10:56 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No idea.
Originally posted by mmQ So it's kind of like the determinism vs free will debate in that we both effectively agreed but our definitions of free will make it seem as though we don't, even though for all intents and purposes, we do.
Not at all, not even remotely. Obbe loves to pose his answer as part of his premise, then pretend he's doing philosophy. -
2018-06-27 at 11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Because 365 years = 1 year of years. I also meant to say 365 days so there was no confusion of calendar year etc but fucked up. Anyway, does that matter? Why do you keep dodging?
I was just curious. I think they should probably change the way they do things of they want to last longer than 365 years. -
2018-06-27 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think they should probably change the way they do things of they want to last longer than 365 years.
Why? Why should their desire to live more than 365 days be met with the response of changing their behaviour?
Separately, what if 50% of the population is irrational and doesn't trust the scientific data due to whatever reasons. Now what?
