Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life
Does a generator objectively exist as such?
All a generator is is an idea and a bunch of atoms.
Does structured matter exist beyond just being matter?
Oh, I agree we can have ideas and make them a reality.
But do you believe there is an objective force we can measure to determine how much goodness or badness specific actions or behaviors have?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life
Lights require lots of different quantum phenomena, like surface effect, to work.
That means that the universe is governed by invisible rules and effects that we can't see (as they have no material reality) and can't predict without recourse to mathematical probability.
The idea that the universe is objective is wrong, but I don't understand, are you saying ideas don't real or what?
Ideas exists as ideas, not as objective properties of our reality. Something is good because I imagine it is good, not because there is some objective force that makes it good.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Lanny
But an instrument with a numeric display isn't electrical potential, it's a way of measuring electrical potential. We have no independent, direct, objective access to electrical potential, we need a story about how the reading on the face of a voltmeter is a measurement of an underlying reality. Likewise with morality, we don't have direct access to it but that doesn't mean it's a mere matter of opinion any more than electrical potential is.
Incorrect. Your light needs a specific voltage to function properly. Whether we refer to this force as 120 volts or 500 Ubik doesn't really matter. There is a force that objectively exists and we can all see that when your light turns on. On the contrary, human life is only good if you imagine it is good. The exact same life could be imagined as either good or bad depending on the imagination of the person making that judgement, but there doesn't seem to be anything objective we can measure to tell us how good or bad that life actually is.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Why does Lanny believe human life is objectively good? Obviously human life is good from the perspective of a human, but what makes it objectively good?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Lanny
There's lots of ways. A common one is "quality adjusted years of human life produced/reduced". Another is more binary: "does this action fulfill or violate my moral obligations". These things are about as measurable as any output of actuarial science, which no one claims is mere subjective opinion.
Neither of those are an objective measurement of goodness or badness.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Zanick
He keeps a lot of secrets like this place and his drugs and they're all self-destructive for him, excuse me if I don't respect his stupid privacy and excuse me for being concerned.
Gee, I wonder why he doesn't like you. Maybe if you were a better sister he wouldn't have become a drug addicted recluse whose only friends are weird internet people.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by mmQ
Why don't you?
Because there is no way to objectively measure the amount goodness or badness we imagine specific actions have. If everyone were to agree to share the same moral theory we would all imagine the same moral conclusions, but even if we did, that wouldn't tell us anything about the real world. When two people with different moral frameworks reach two different moral conclusions about a specific action there is no way for us to measure who if either of them is objectively correct.
Why would anyone believe morality is objective?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-01-12 at 4:18 PM UTC
in
Captain Falcon is a Manwhore
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Loing
I actually made it clear I feel no moral obligation to not eat meat.
Lanny would say the obligation exists whether you feel it or not.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-01-11 at 9:54 PM UTC
in
Unban infinityshock
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by ScarletLetter
Is the infinity guy, not allowed to post anymore, why?
Not for another year and 49 weeks.
For the same reason this website exists, Lanny felt like it.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by ScarletLetter
https://www.urbandictionary
*TOP DEFINITION
daf =
dumb as fuck
*That bitch is daf, fo real.
Kinda like daft.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Lanny
That wasn't what I asked you. Could you please re-read the post you were responding to and answer specifically the question I posed.
That is my answer specific to the question you asked me: you have not demonstrated any moral system exists beyond imagination. Your moral conclusions might logically follow your moral framework, but your moral framework is something you are imagining and so your conclusions are only regarding your imagined framework and tell us nothing about reality. If you imagine all cows are moral agents, and if you imagine killing moral agents is always immoral, the logical conclusion of that is that you imagine killing cows is always immoral. This doesn't tell us anything about reality though, it only tells us the logical conclusion of imagining that cows are moral agents while also imagining that killing moral agents is always immoral.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by
^ Looks like he's not the only one, so why don't you just take your hypocritical fail-ass out of the thread, stop harassing and chasing users off the site, and then go fuck yourself?
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.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
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.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-01-01 at 1:11 AM UTC
in
ATTN: OBBE
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Lanny
Moral obligations are those things that should be done for their own sake.
"we" is anyone with sufficient moral agency.
Nothing should be done for its own sake. Who decides what sufficient moral agency is? This is all in your imagination.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by Loing
And whether people do what they feel like doing is completely irrelevant to whether they are doing what they should be doing, irrespective of their belief in it. That is what is being asserted. I can't believe you are so fucking retarded that this has to be explained this many times.
Everything from this point onwards in this post is strictly irrelevant, but I'm arguing it anyway because you're dumb:
Well no, that's just blatantly false. People make normative judgments completely independent of "the system maaan". Let me press your hand to a hot stove and hold it there while telling you your subjective judgment on the experience is irrelevant.
Jimmy, answer the following question:
How many vertices does a triangle have?
Yes duh, are you stupid? For any moral discussion to reach a conclusion, it will ultimately rely on us coming to terms on certain moral premises to start with.
This is why we can have practical moral discussions, as we do in many current events and political cases cases, because we can start from points of moral agreement (including articles of international law), without agreeing in ultimate moral truths or even our most basic axioms or systems.
So if I offer a trolley problem like postwar Hitler who was captured and given a full judicial trial and found guilty and admitted his own guilt vs 5000 newborn babies, most people will realistically opt to kill Hitler. Why? Because whether or not we all agree on the same ultimate moral authorities, we can still conduct moral discussions and come to moral agreements. We do this all the time. A Muslim and a Christian can both agree that murder is wrong.
Again, I cannot believe I am having this autistic never-took-a-phil-class discussion with someone who claims to have been interested in philosophy for so many years.
You're assuming there is something people should be doing. There isn't. There is only what people do, what people
think they should do, and what the system compels people to do.
Originally posted by Lanny
That's not common usage, that's not what you'll find in the dictionary, and that's not how the term has been used in this thread. You are wrong on every level it is possible to be wrong about the meaning of a word.
I made no effort to explain that because I don't think that's the case and never said it was, you mentally deficient cunt.
When a physicist says "an electron has less mass than a proton" they are, in some sense, saying "I think that <an electron has less mass than a proto>" and in that same sense when I say things about moral obligations I'm also expressing my opinions, but whether my opinions are correct or not, there is a fact to the matter. I'm sorry that you've been offended by the ever so pretentious claim that there are true and false statements about the world but uhh, that's kinda not my problem?
Opinions about morality cannot be true, only consistent with the moral framework they emerge from. If I don't share your moral framework I won't share your moral conclusions. The mass of that proton on the other hand is something that is consistently demonstrateable whether I acknowledge it or not. If I feel something is right or wrong, and you feel the opposite, that doesn't tell us anything about reality, that only tells us about how each of us feel about something.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2018-12-22 at 7:16 PM UTC
in
In the Bible, what is "God"
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by D4NG0
WAIT. NO!
LANNY you motherfucker! You banned him again. Fuck you.
You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by GGG
Women need a strong female role model.
If that's true (why do women need a strong female role model?), why do you suggest a gender neutral role model instead of a strong female one?
Also, why would you take away a male role model from boys? Do they not need role models?
Originally posted by GGG
Santa is a dude.
Santa is imaginary.
Originally posted by GGG
Little girls have NOBODY to look up to during the holidays.
Why not Santa?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
