User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2019-01-04 at 11:59 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing In my moral system, you can make axiomatic statements that would apply to any possible moral agent of any sort, by logical necessity. Could you call that an objective moral truth?
Logical consequences of your imaginary system are logical consequences of your imaginary system. Your imaginary system doesn't tell us anything about the world beyond your imagination.
Originally posted by Lanny My moral framework in particular, or all moral frameworks? If you deny the existence of factual moral statements as a category then that's a pretty strong position I think you'll need a better defense of than "moral frameworks are imaginary because I say so".
You haven't demonstrated any moral system that exists beyond imagination. Moral frameworks aren't imaginary "because I say so," moral frameworks are imaginary because they are imagined.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Maths is a set of rules and logic, and doesn't need to have anything to do with material things, as in pure mathematics. The universe has logical rules that exist by themselves and are objectively true, and they don't need to be obvious, related to material things, or even testable to be true.
If all Chulas are Ubik, and all Ubik gets glomped, will all Chulas get glomped? The logical consequence of this scenario is imaginary and tells us nothing about reality. -
2019-01-04 at 12:33 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny No, I'm not doing that, I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. There are many moral statements, clearly. Some or none of them may be facts. Whether any moral statement is true, or any particular statement is true, is a fact, not a mere matter of opinion.
Numbers are not "observable" in any physical sense, but presumably you'd agree with statements like "7 is a prime number". Physical observability has never been necessary condition for statements having truth values.
Some moral statements will be logically consistent with your moral framework, and some will not be. Whether other people actually agree with your moral framework is a matter of opinion. Your moral framework exists only within your imagination and doesn't tell us anything about objective reality. -
2019-01-02 at 10:32 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth I think Lanny conceives of morality as a branch of logic, more or less the same as mathematics. In the same way as you can have a logical fact you can have a mathematical fact, and a moral fact. Why is that approach wrong?
What is logical is not always what is true, and math is not reality it is an approximation of reality. Moral statements are nonmaterial and do not appear to be accessible to empirical investigation. Moral statements cannot be observed in the same way as material facts (which are objective), so it seems odd to count them in the same category.
I've seen no reason to treat morality as something objective. The system will compel us to act the way it wants us to act and whether we think our actions are moral or immoral doesn't really matter, in the same way that it doesn't really matter if we think our actions are freely willed or not. -
2019-01-02 at 7:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny I've never suggested doing as much. Maybe you should reread the post you quoted.
You are labelling moral statements as "moral facts", and go on to say these "moral facts" have either a positive or negative "truth value". I don't agree with using the word fact in this way; a fact is true or it is not a fact at all. -
2019-01-02 at 4:16 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny To summarize: I take issue with claims like "what is right(moral facts) is a matter of opinion" which you seem to champion here. This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "right" or "moral facts". You can understand what is meant by the term without holding there are any true moral facts. By analogy, somebody might say "facts about phlogiston are a matter of opinion" and this would be a similar misunderstanding. Presumably we agree that there is no true positive fact as to the color of phlogiston, since it doesn't exist, but we can pretty easily say there is a truth value to statements like "phlogiston is green" or "phlogiston exists".
I don't ask that you agree that any particular moral fact is true, but there is no point trying to justify a particular moral fact (i.e. that we that shouldn't eat meat) if you refuse to acknowledge what the term "moral fact" signifies in any such justification.
I don't agree with labelling moral conclusions as "moral facts". I don't agree with labelling both true or false statements as "fact"; rather, a fact is true or it is not a fact at all. If Ubik does not exist it doesn't make sense to label the statement "Ubik is red" as a fact. Rather the statement "Ubik is red" is an expression of how the speaker imagines Ubik. It is their imagination, their opinion.
Statements like "X is immoral" are also not facts. The statement "X is immoral" may be consistent with the speakers moral framework, or not, but as long as morality is just something people imagine it has nothing to do with facts. -
2019-01-01 at 1:11 AM UTC in ATTN: OBBE
-
2019-01-01 at 1:04 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-01 at 12:35 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-31 at 6:13 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing There is no objective reason to deliver pizza, but on the basis of the fact that we do deliver pizza, we can come to factual conclusions on all sorts of aspects of reality.
Our desires are literally empirical data about the world, and we can model them in terms of how they interact. You can do this however you want. Categorical imperative, social contract, game theory… But if you can accept the data and the premises, you cannot reject the conclusions. To not grasp this is just a basic failure of understanding. It's literally no different than any hard science endeavour either, at its most basic level. That's how we can see an 8% neutron excess on a graph and make a strong claim about finding a fundamental particle of the universe.
And you can build from axioms that would apply to any normal, able bodied, mentally sound agent, from their perspective.
For example, the basic right to life. If someone wants to keep doing things at all, they want to stay alive. We can take that as an axiom, and draw conclusions based on that in a wheelchair variety of different models.
No there's no inherent meaning to it. That is not a thing. But it has meaning to us, the same way anything else does.
I don't believe I ever disputed that. -
2018-12-31 at 6:12 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny These are questions that need to be addressed empirically, I'm not committed to an answer one way or another and am willing to change my position based on new evidence. As best I can tell bee hives probably don't have hedonic faculties, although they do have some very interesting emergent behaviors so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Bees don't seem to really possess the required faculties to ask questions like "is it morally permissible to sting such and such". I think most humans have the intellectual capacity to engage in moral reasoning, and most do at least sometimes, although I suppose I can imagine people so strongly conditioned by a program of religious indoctrination that they can at least partially be excused for their conduct that follows from that.
No. Firstly this isn't really a "shitlib" phenomenon. Second you can think it's not OK to strike your child without letting them wreak havoc in restaurants, it turns out there's more ways to make a child behave in socially acceptable ways than inflicting physical pain on them. Lastly, and this is the only point that's actually relevant to the topic, it's wholly possible to say something isn't at fault but still take "punitive" action against it. We don't ascribe moral agency to earthquakes, but we still construct buildings to withstand them. Likewise I don't think a child has full moral agency, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be above punishment or that we shouldn't do what we can to mitigate their undesirable behavior. They're just not morally accountable for their actions.
You don't have to be a moral realist to understand what is meant by the term "moral obligation" in the title of this thread.
No, but I think I would need to be a moral realist to agree with what you mean by that term. -
2018-12-29 at 5:16 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing Unfortunately, you have unsuccessfully tried to lie about what I said, which was "should he take the most efficient route?", which not at all involves questioning the very enterprise of delivering pizza.
That's a completely different level of description, that is entertained because we presume to have made the necessary assumptions before that point to get to where we are discussing a delivery route. We have already taken it as given that the customer ordered a pizza, they form an agreement to exchange money for food (BUT IS MONEY REAL?!?!) with the business, they make the food, and now they must consider the path they ought to take to take to the customer's house. I mean, I literally just explained this to you. This is no different than the assumptions we take to get to the abstraction layers that, say, neuroscience operates at. We just observe phenomena.
The "ought" is an observation of which assumption we start with in order to connect our "is"es. And that assumption is also an "is", but but to study that is, you have to make a further set of assumptions of "ought". You're not going to escape this problem.
If you just took the time to read up on Hume with a clear mind, you'd see how amazingly dumb you're being right now.
Moral frameworks simply model the interaction of these assumptions. There's some axioms that have no inherent fact but are seemingly true for us to have certain discussion.
You appear to agree that there is no reason to believe people should deliver pizza. You are simply saying that if someone has a goal in their mind, some actions will achieve their goal better than other actions, which is not something I have ever disputed. None of this seems to support the idea that moral facts exist beyond your imagination. -
2018-12-29 at 4:15 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing No, broadly speaking people eat meat because they eat meat. But that's not a very useful description of anything. There are many levels of description. At the level of particle physics, there is no description of "people". It is utterly retarded that you do not understand this. There is no interpretation of physics at the granular level that has any vocabulary relevant to people, society, the universe. And that's not necessarily because of the laws of physics at their base layers, but larger organizational structures, for example the topology of the space in which these abstract mathematical operations take place, and it's not clear where that fits in or if it even does fit in clearly with with what we can principally investigate scientifically (since that's just how we model these phenomena).
In terms of the science factuals, we don't even have the principle abstraction layers between chemistry and biology, for example. And who knows the sort of possibility spaces operate between those abstraction layers, just due to interlevel dynamics? For example relativity + QM plays a part in GPS technology, to make a classical scale effect, a human scale effect.
So we make discrete layers of description. We have biology without guy understanding the intermediate abstraction layers every time. How does the angular position. Of the moon affect growth patterns for bacterial moss? Who knows, let's find out. The science of biological organisms in their environment, biology.
I don't know if you have hard autism or some other mental block that makes you completely incapable of changing your mind to anything outside the first and only book you've ever read, but I really wish I could get through it and get you to understand. The whole point of the entire endeavour of naturalistic inquiry is to resolve the world of human existence with an objective explanatory picture of the universe.
People deliver pizzas because people deliver pizzas. Maybe some of these people want to deliver pizza. Maybe some of these people feel compelled to deliver pizza. There is no reason to believe anyone should deliver pizza. Maybe you believe people "should" deliver pizza and maybe you believe that is a moral fact, but we have no reason to agree with you. -
2018-12-29 at 4:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny But you would agree that moral facts, if they exist, are not a mere matter of opinion? You just happen to think there are no true unqualified ought statements, but that itself is a moral fact, your position is that it's not merely your opinion that there are no unqualified ought statements, it's a matter of fact, yes? So we can at least agree on what a moral fact is, even if you're not yet convinced "we ought not eat meat" is a true one.
Your physical conclusions might be consistent with the physical framework they emerge from but if a person rejects your physical frame work they are going to reject your physical conclusions.
We can talk about metaethics if you like, about the justifications given for moral frameworks, but first let's make sure we have a mutual understanding of what is meant by terms like "moral obligation" and "moral facts", otherwise there's no point discussing justification of something if we can't even agree on what that thing is. Posts like this:
suggest you're using these kinds of terms differently than I, or any moral realist, would.
The reason I may be using the terms differently than you might be that I am not a moral realist and that I do not agree with you that moral facts exist in the same way that the mass of an electron is the mass of an electron.
If a person rejects physical reality, well, they are probably going to have a tough life. If a person rejects your moral framework it probably doesn't matter at all, unless the system is compelling everyone to adhere to that specific moral framework.
Maybe you could explain why you are a moral realist, and how you know your moral framework and moral conclusions are more than mere opinions, and what you mean by terms like moral facts and moral obligations.
Since you are simply asserting that moral facts exist without giving any explanation as to why, we can simply reject your assertion without needing to give any explanation as to why. -
2018-12-29 at 1:27 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Exactly, and the same goes for moral facts. Nobody decided what is actually morally right. Moral facts are no more a matter of opinion than the mass of an electron is. We have have unjustified or incorrect opinions about what is or isn't right, just as we might have wrong ideas about the mass of an electron, but relegating moral facts to mere opinion is to misunderstand the meaning of terms like "moral obligation" to moral realists.
I don't think I do misunderstand you, I just don't agree with your assertion that moral facts exist in the same way that the mass of an electron is the mass of an electron.
Your moral conclusions might be consistent with the moral framework they emerge from but if a person rejects your moral frame work they are going to reject your moral conclusions, and so far I have not seen you give any argument as to why your moral framework is absolute.
Maybe you could explain why you are a moral realist, and how you know your moral framework and moral conclusions are more than mere opinions. -
2018-12-28 at 9:42 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-28 at 6:32 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Why not?
Who decides what the mass of an electron is?
I mean there is no should, beyond our imaginations. People imagine that this should be that, or that I should do this or shouldn't do that. But outside of our imaginations there only is what there is. Why do you believe the world should be a certain way? Why do you believe good and bad exist beyond your imagination? Why do you believe things "should" be done? Why do you believe moral obligations exist?
Nobody decided that electron should have "Y" mass. It either does or it doesn't have "Y" mass. Maybe someone imagines it should have "Y" mass, but they won't know until they measure it. How do you measure good and bad? It's all in your imagination. Who decides what "sufficient moral agency" is? -
2018-12-25 at 6:27 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing Well no, not exactly, it is completely opposite of your point and your statement is retarded. The current state of the universe turns into the next state by virtue of the properties of the current state. But this is not the context in which pizzas exist. People deliver pizzas because people want to make money, which is provided to them in exchange for their service in delivering the pizza. If he wants to do the job as well as possible, he ought to adopt the most efficient route. To say "he will or he won't" is an autistic category error that blatantly just changes the subject. If I buy 10 packs of candy with 20 candies per pack, I reason that if the packaging is accurate and I did receive the right amount of packages, I ought to find 200 candies in my purchase. This relation of two facts is completely independent of whether or not there are in fact 200 candies, which is not going to be the case if either of my first assumptions are wrong. The point of Hume's assertion of the gap between is an ought is that there is always a hidden assumption in the relation between two "is"es.
Again, autisticslly denying that "ought" exists isn't a coherent argument. I know you are trying to parrot Sam Harris on this because you thought he said something vaguely similar one time, but he doesn't deny the existence of oughts either.
No I said the sufficiency of your moral agency is determined by other agents. You're the one who has to assert your competence as a moral agent. They are the ones that have to accept your competence.
Yeah quoting Kaczynski doesn't make people think you're mentally ill.
Everything literally happens for its own sake, not because anything "should" happen. People want to make money, not because they "should" make money, but because of the system that compels them to. -
2018-12-25 at 4:56 PM UTC in Ho Ho Ho ya Hoes! 🌲
-
2018-12-25 at 3:24 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing Literally everything happens for its own sake.
Yes, exactly. Everything that is happening is happening, but there is nothing that "should" be happening. People deliver pizzas because people deliver pizzas, not because they "should".
Originally posted by Loing Everyone else that the agent comes into contact with.
So you imagine an agents agency is determined by other agents with agency. I don't think I agree with that. An agents agency is an inherent quality of their agentness.
Originally posted by Loing But we allow this level of judgment to abstracted away to society because we want to do other things.
You use the roads so you do too, and you also make principally avoidable but practically unavoidable concessions to participate in (and benefit from the membership of) the Moral Agents Club of society.
Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is unimportant. But in all important matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee. Modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the individuation process. The “mid-life crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
Before the system took over, life was a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the individuation process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” The fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the individuation process—with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the individuation process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. This is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the individuation process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the individuation process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
The oversocialized man has feelings of inferiority so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the oversocialized man. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. He may claim that his activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, but compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for moralist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of moralist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much of their behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people, or animals whom the moraliats claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But moral activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for individuation. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the moraliats would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. -
2018-12-25 at 2:02 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
