User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-06-26 at 6:55 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2018-06-26 at 6:42 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2018-06-26 at 6:41 PM UTC in 40 y/o cuties with nice booties
-
2018-06-26 at 6:12 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?A rainbow is not located at a specific distance from the observer, but comes from an optical illusion caused by any water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to a light source. Thus, a rainbow is not an object and cannot be physically approached. Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source. Even if an observer sees another observer who seems "under" or "at the end of" a rainbow, the second observer will see a different rainbow—farther off—at the same angle as seen by the first observer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow -
2018-06-26 at 6:08 PM UTC in 40 y/o cuties with nice booties
-
2018-06-26 at 5:49 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain I'm not arguing for Lanny. I'm arguing for my moral system, which is simply based on logical consistency. Self interest, whatever that may be, seems to be an objective feature of any organism capable of participating in a society.
Ok. I don't see how morality is objective. I don't see how "self interest" supports morality being objective. An individual may be objectively self interested - that doesn't mean what they consider to be "moral" is objectively moral. The fact that you refer to your system as "your" system and not "the" system seems to support my argument that morality is relative and not at all objective. -
2018-06-26 at 3:28 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny The argument never was that the majority of people believing something is wrong makes it objectively wrong. What I was pointing out is that our moral intuitions about the moral status of an action are non-relative. Even if people don't always or even often agree on what is right or wrong, most people have the intuition that there's a fact of the matter whether some is right or not, which is why we use factual language around normative statements in language e.g. no one ever says "it's wrong to murder babies from my perspective", we say "it's wrong to murder babies" without qualification. Indeed, in most contexts this kind of unqualified ought statement is taken as the the fundamental character of a moral proposition.
Just because people word their statements in a certain way or feel that something is a matter of fact doesn't mean it is. "It's wrong to murder babies" is obviously relative. Example: abortion clinics. -
2018-06-26 at 2:07 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Sure it can be. For example, I would definitely "murder" someone in self defence, a situation where murder is in my best interest, because someone might be attempting to violate my rights.
In my system, all of your rights are derived from your self granted biological "right" to life. You give yourself a personal right to life because you come to be by some biological impetus, and it is a tautological truth that you will allow yourself to do whatever you want by that impetus, and the first among these things which would be living, so you can exercise all the freedoms that existing and living grants you. Then you give some up to enter a state of society, for example you give up your right to kill someone in order to feel safe in expressing your right to live.
Therefore the right to life is the most important right, and unless you are willing to forfeit your right to life (i.e. you want to die) and all of the freedoms that come with it, it is unquestionably the most important right of your own to protect. It seems obvious that it is never in your best interest to murder, unless it is what is needed to continue your own right to life, or unless your best interest is to forfeit all your rights somehow.
I don't see how any of that supports what Lanny is saying about morality being objective. -
2018-06-26 at 2:04 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Originally posted by aldra I am going to fucking melt you for bumping this
But really colour is all in your mind it's just your brains way of interpreting light at specific wavelengths, objects are not coloured in reality. A rainbow is just an optical illusion it doesn't physically exist "out there" it's all in your mind.
-
2018-06-26 at 1:15 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatMurder can be in ones self interest. How is that not relative?
-
2018-06-26 at 12:56 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny no thx bc imanuel cunt is a homo lol.
P.S. killer at the door lol
I disagree, in fact the very meaning of morality that I've put forward in this thread is that the moral status of an act is factual rather than relative.
The easy answer here is to say "the meaning of morality as I've used it, is non-relative". To say "that may be wrong from your perspective but right from mine" is to take a different meaning for the words "right" and "wrong" than I and other have been using in this thread so far.
Like I said before, you can take the stance that all actions have neutral moral status and there are a lot of different arguments for a realist meta-ethics (establishing that there is at least one proposition of the form "X is wrong" or "X is right"). Some of the simpler ones are from moral intuition. E.g. when we say murdering people is wrong, we as a society have agreed that we ought to stop murderers. We don't accept "but it was right from my perspective!" as a defense, nor would we tolerate a judge who dismissed cases because it was right from their perspective to do so. Our moral intuitions are that there is some transpersonal (i.e. non-subjective) element of morality.
Just because a majority of people believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is objectively wrong. If there is a non-subjective element to morality would you please point to it? -
2018-06-25 at 10:05 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
New AI sexdoll:
-
2018-06-25 at 6:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-25 at 6:06 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by benny vader how can morality be ''relative''.
for it to be relative, there has to be a static reference point for us to refer to and compare its location / coordinate …..
morality is not relative.
its arbitrary, subjective, and sometimes impulsive.
To a regular person eating meat is moral.
To a vegetarian eating meat is immoral.
Therefore morality is relative.
I guess those other words would work too. -
2018-06-25 at 2:58 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny The situation you proposed was that plants were morally considerable, you didn't say how morally considerable. I addressed the situation where they were morally considerable but only a little (we would be justified in eating them) and where they were very morally considerable (we wouldn't be justified in eating them). So yes, there is a hypothetical scenario where I think plants are more morally considerable than people and that scenario is "imagine if plants were more morally considerable than people". I don't think this is anywhere close to being a reality.
Wether or not you think I'm capable of acting according to my values doesn't really change the moral fact of the situation. Also like I said before, because I think animals are less morally considerable than humans I think we're wholly justified in killing lower animals if it saves a human life. I just don't think we're justified in killing animals to satisfy our preference for meat.
I don't believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong. You've framed the situation like I think morality follows from opinion, but it doesn't. Things are wrong or right or morally neutral as a matter of fact, to deny this is to misunderstand what the meaning of "ought" is. Now you can take the position known as "moral error theory" and argue that there are no morally right or wrong acts (i.e. every act is morally neutral) but you can't hold that an act is right from one perspective and wrong from another.
This is the same reason it's possible to do wrong without knowing it (e.g. in harming beings you don't recognize as being capable of suffering). The moral status of the action has nothing to do with what you know or think about the moral status of the action, it's a fact and like all facts it's possible to be wrong about it.
Morality is not a fact, morality is relative. Acts that are right from one perspective are wrong from another perspective. I don't understand how you could possibly believe something could be objectively right or wrong. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute and not relative? -
2018-06-25 at 11:42 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs AttentionBless your hearts
-
2018-06-24 at 11:53 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-24 at 9:56 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-22 at 10:28 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny I obviously don't consider either more morally considerable than myself, as evidenced by my not starving to death for the benefit of plants or lower animals. The situation was a hypothetical where we have some reason to believe that they are more morally considerable than us, which like I said, seems far fetched.
No, the hypothetical situation was that these lifeforms were capable of experiencing "well being" and "suffering". I never mentioned anything about these lifeforms being more morally considerable than us. However you did state that if these lifeforms were found to be capable of an equal "depth of feeling" as animals, that you would feel obligated to die rather than eat them. Doesn't that mean you would consider these lifeforms to be more morally considerable than your own self, so much so that you would give your own life for the sake of their lives?
That seems strange to me. I also don't believe it. I do believe that if you were starving you would eat these hypothetical lifeforms, and I believe you would eat meat if you were starving, too. If you were starving and all that was available was murdered chickens I do believe you would eat those chickens, morality be damned.
Originally posted by Lanny In short yes, it would matter. Do you understand how the is/ought distinction works?
I guess not. I don't think it would really matter at all. If a superior being came to Earth to experiment on us and didn't care about how immoral we thought the experiment was, it wouldn't matter how immoral we thought it was, it would happen no matter what we thought. And as far as we know, maybe the alien is experimenting on us for reasons that would excuse any perceived immorality if only we could comprehend it!
So anyway, why do you believe it would be absolutely wrong because some humans believe it would be wrong? -
2018-06-22 at 9:56 PM UTC in bundy causing weeklong hangovers
Originally posted by Glokula's Homabla i used a gram+ of bundy every day for 6 months. after going through absolutely terrible withdrawals that lasted for like a year, now every time i take bundy i feel terrible for days. probably something akin to the kindling effect in alcoholics where every withdrawal/hangover gets worse permanently. now i never do it anymore because its not worth the aftereffects. the longest hangover i had from bundy was when i took something like 2700mg of bundy after grams of T-PAIN and phenibut. i was hungover as fuck for like 8 days and thought it was never going to end. i woke up each of those days still tripping it was scary
Do you regret it?
