User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-06-27 at 8:39 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain I have used the FBI anonymous tip form to report you for possessing and selling child pornography for cryptocurrency through this website.
I hope your opsec was on point.
Are you asserting that somehow they magically generated an uncaused opinion or feeling, and it actualized into this world in the form of action?
Because as far as I know, everything in this universe is caused and created by objective physical processes. The illusion of subjectivity simply exists because of a lack of information; you can draw useful conclusions based on incomplete information, which is the only purpose or definition of subjectivity I've ever heard as remotely defensible. It's just a subset of objectivity.
Correct and incorrect has nothing to do with either morality or objectivity. Objectivity strictly boils down to true/false logic. The only objective truth in the universe is what can be derived through pure logic, and the use of analytical statements to illustrate tautological truths. It is literally binary, true or false. For morality, the best you can do is test for consistency, and you can derive certain logical axioms a priori, from which you can derive moral axioms.
No part of my morality asserts correctness, and the answer of who is acting morally or immorally is actually not binary and/or mutually exclusive, it's not like a coin toss. Neither of them have to be correct or incorrect.
You choose what you want to do and whether you can live with the consequences of doing it. If you think something would be a negative action to take against you and you don't want it to happen to you, you don't don't do it because you've already judged that action in their position to be bad, whether or not it is advantageous or anything else for you.
I don't think we actually disagree about any of that, I'm not sure why you keep framing this as an argument. -
2018-06-27 at 6:29 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-27 at 6:26 PM UTC in Are coasters supposed to stick to the cup when you lift it up?Put salt on the coaster before you put your drink on it.
-
2018-06-27 at 5:18 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Systems with the ability and impetus to begin to exist and sustain their own persistence, are oriented to do so. That's just a tautological, objective truth. Additionally, any system that has the tendency ("desire") to act or be a certain way, has the imperative to be that way and actualize itself that way. This is also a tautological truth. These facts, and the ability to deal with and around them, are the basis of my morality.
Social contracts seem to be just such a system, for individuals as well as for the concept of a social contract itself. Certain behaviours are logically optimized for such a living system, and a supersystem composed of the interactions of such individual life systems, to exist, and to form such a system is a logical necessity for any such individual who is born and respects their own right to life, and wants it preserved. It could apply to aliens or super intelligent cows or something else entirely. If you are born and want to do know the most optimal way to continue exercising your freedom to do stuff as a result of being alive, then my moral system applies to you.
Let me make a better argument for you, because you are a mongoloid.
Lets think about an alternatively morally oriented being; a "Mr Meeseeks" from the cartoon Rick and Morty.
If you haven't watched it, Mr Meeseeks are creatures that are created spontaneously from nothingness with the press of a button, and their primary and singular higher motivation is to cease to exist, because existence is torture to Meeseeks. Upon being summoned, you can ask a Mr Meeseeks to perform a task, and the only way for them to cease to exist is to successfully carry out the task they are assigned. That task thus becomes their singular checkpoint on the path to nonexistence.
The box that summons a Meeseeks is designed by Rick, it did not emerge as a direct result of evolution etc, it is essentially a tool designed by rick. This is important because it is borne of a different set of motivations and pretty much shows us a completely valid alternative set of morals.
Such a being can have a completely different and incompatible set of moral motivations because
1) Existence is an inherent negative to a Meeseeks. Its natural impetus is to reject its right to life, and end its own life, and propagation is a negative to it. Not dying means ultimate suffering for the Meeseeks.
2) In order to end its life and its further suffering, it must perform whatever task it was assigned.
So to a Meeseeks, the most logical course of action would be to do whatever is necessary to accomplish its task and go back into nonexistence. The basis for his behaviour is no different than mine, I just happen to have the desire to keep living and the Meeseeks does not. He would simply be acting on his self interest, as I am acting in mine. I don't need to make that judgement for him.
However, the fun part of this example is that we can dissect individual moral actions through the use of the Meeseeks as a tool to isolate each consideration and its circumstances, because it gears anything except steps towards accomplishing that one goal is basically a negative.
However, even this still works in my moral system. If I was in the position of the Meeseeks and assumed his motivations, I would say it is perfectly reasonable for the Meeseeks to act whatever way it needs to in order to accomplish its goal, but I have no obligation to allow it to accomplish that goal if it violates my rights. I could judge the Meeseeks as being perfectly morally consistent, even if it murders someone, because it has no desire to preserve its right to life or continue to do anything except its right to life. However, even the Meeseeks must still play moral ball with us, because if it just goes out and does whatever, we could still arrest or restrain it and hinder its from its primary goal, which is nonexistence… so even if you don't value your own right to life (because Meeseeks skip straight to the "freedom to do anything" part, but with the desire to do only one thing, ultimately nothing)), ultimately, you can value morality in order to actualize your goals, whatever they may be.
My moral system is 100% logically consistent and ob jective.
Didn't read.
Originally posted by Captain Why is that clearly subjective?
Because their conclusions are influenced by their opinions or feelings.
If morality is objective than one of them must be incorrect. You believe morality is objective, so tell me how you would determine who is correct in that scenario. -
2018-06-27 at 4:22 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain You don't understand what the word "subjective" means, you fuckwit. An action can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances surrounding it. That doesn't mean it's subjective. An equation can be equal to 20 or 35, and two different equations can be equal to 12, it depends on the information presented but that doesn't mean mathematics is "subjective".
A person blows up an abortion clinic and believes it was the moral thing to do. The person who owns this clinic believes it was an immoral thing to do. That's clearly subjective. -
2018-06-27 at 3:27 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Why? A person blows up an abortion clinic. They believe it was a moral action. The people who own the clinic believe it was immoral. This is possible because morality is relative.
If you believe morality is objective and that there is something objective we can look at to determine who is correct in a situation like this, what is it? -
2018-06-27 at 2:57 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny No, you've said some things are both right and wrong, simultaneously, dependent on perspective (you have an alien example). That's entirely different from saying the moral status of an action is sometimes right or sometimes wrong contingent on other situational facts. No one here has disagreed with the latter, almost everyone would disagree with the former.
Why? A person blows up an abortion clinic. They believe it was a moral action. The people who own the clinic believe it was immoral. This is possible because morality is relative. -
2018-06-27 at 2:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Well there's a distinction between a fetus and a baby. Also a person who thinks killing young children is generally wrong but thinks abortion is acceptable doesn't take a relativist position. Ethical realism doesn't (necessarily) mean you think there are a set moral laws and no situational fact can change what's right (e.g. abortion vs. infanticide). It just means that moral statements are propositions with truth values rather than mere statements of opinion.
If you believe that the truth of a statement like "X is immoral" depends on the situation and is not always true, then you seem to believe that morality is relative. -
2018-06-27 at 2:15 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatAlso, you appear to have just stated that something is wrong sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Which means it is relative. Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time...
-
2018-06-27 at 2:07 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain You have to show me some inconsistencies in the actual moral system, because I can give you a perfectly consistent and probably 100% agreeable and logical account for why abortion is usually wrong, but not always. I've derived my system from pure logic. And it's the best theory and model of morality I've seen so far, but I don't want to sniff my farts too much.
That post was meant for Lanny. Lanny claimed morality is objective, and used baby murder as an example. I still don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you sniffed too many farts? -
2018-06-27 at 11:13 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatSo anyways just because people some feel intuitively that "it's wrong to murder babies" doesn't mean murdering babies is objectively wrong. That's obviously relative. Look at abortion clinics. The people who protest outside might agree with you but the people who run the clinic obviously don't. Is one group wrong or is morality relative?
-
2018-06-26 at 11:02 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-26 at 9:52 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Are you retarded? There is nothing subjective about the material of this universe. Don't be ridiculous. This is all just matter interacting. Self interest is exactly as much an objective basis for the logical derivation of my moral system as it is for the establishment of evolution by natural selection. In fact it can be seen as an extrusion of evolution into a societal context, and a more purelogic formulation of the idea. My moral system does not rely on any particular subjective judgment from your conscious mind. Youcan have any "subjective" judgment of ethics you want, but it always balances out in a societal context until it reaches an equilibrium of people who want to live together and forfeit certain freedoms for their opposing rights.
Your decisions are simply your genes interacting with the environment. Those genes have evolved from basically nothing but self interest (which seems to be propagation, because there is no other way for something to come to be in any form close to living without being the result of many, many generations of successful propagation from simpler forms).
Wtfamireading.jpg -
2018-06-26 at 6:56 PM UTC in 40 y/o cuties with nice booties
-
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.
