User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-06-28 at 7:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by aldra interpretation of morality comes from the same place as any other one of your thoughts or desires; I think he was trying to use that as a parallel to discuss the difference between objectivity and subjectivity
I had to dig too far back to get through all the retarding so I don't know exactly what the original point of contention was
Thanks for trying to help but still don't understand... if individuals are "interpreting" morality is that not subjective?
If one person interprets a behavior as moral and another person interprets the same behavior as immoral... to me, that means morality is obviously relative. It's all in an individual's mind. To assume morality is objective must mean that one of those individuals are incorrect in their interpretation. So ... what do we look at to see who is incorrect? What is the objective part of morality Lanny and Falcon are claiming exists?
Do you understand what they are trying to explain to me Aldra? Can you explain it in a way dumb ol' Obbe might understand? -
2018-06-28 at 6:34 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-28 at 2:31 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI guess I just don't understand.
-
2018-06-28 at 1:01 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI have not been interested in what you've been saying this entire time. I'm just waiting for Lanny to reply to me.
-
2018-06-28 at 12:50 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Do you think that is an objective basis for your behaviour?
Yes, I think my desires and behaviors are simply my genes interacting with the environment.
If you have a point I think you could have made it like 6 posts ago. Say what you want to say instead of asking me an endless line of dumb questions. -
2018-06-28 at 11:44 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Are you predestined by god to devolve into shitty semantic fallback arguments when you can't admit you're wrong? If you choose not to do something, you are rejecting the proposition of doing that thing in favour of something else. Either way, it doesn't change the question, you're just really shit at actually even avoiding the question.
And the question is simple , but I'll boil it down even further: what is the unit of measure of the "strength" of your desire? What objective source do you derive the conclusion that you like one thing more than the other from?
I don't know dude, apparently I have a much better grasp of the English language than you do.
I don't measure the "strength of my desire". I don't "conclude" that I like one thing more than another, I just like what I like. I don't believe any of this has anything to do with morality any more. You're just being stupid. -
2018-06-28 at 12:50 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain That's not an answer. You're not providing any objective A/B connection here. You have and reject a lot of thoughts on a daily basis. On what basis do you give preference to one idea over the other and decide whether or not to act on it?
I can ask this questions in many different ways but you're going to have to acknowledge that you are assigning a normative value to pursuing any particular desire and then somehow comparing them and making a decision on which decision you are going to make.
I don't "reject thoughts" or "give preference to one idea over another". You're not making sense. If I desire something more strongly than I desire something else, I'm going to end up thinking about and pursuing the thing I most desire. How are you even asking these questions? -
2018-06-27 at 11:31 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Nobody cares about "would". If someone wants to murder you, they will do that too. The question is why they should. Again, you're not answering the question, just evading it by posing your irrational conclusion as part of your premise.
You have a thought in your brain. What justification do you have for pursuing it?
are you actually retarded? Who has to justify "pursuing their own thoughts"? That's nonsense. -
2018-06-27 at 11:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI just think the answer is obvious. If their desire for survial is greater than their desire for meat, that's what they would do.
-
2018-06-27 at 11:08 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 11 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 10:52 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 10:34 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 10:25 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 10:22 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-27 at 10:21 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 10:10 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-27 at 10:08 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 9:55 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 9:23 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Because it's an objective basis for morality.
If you don't disagree with any of my premises or don't believe I have illegitimately connected any steps of my reasoning, then you are forced to acknowledge that. It's not Lanny's version, but it's there.
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.
