How Far is "Too Far?"

[Cwckifan]

No I am not stretching anything that far. You are. I did not suggest that you should be in jail for wearing nike trainers. I am saying that you contribute to these things and that your personal desires and material comforts are more important than the 6 year old forced to make your clothes. You can say that it isn't so but I can also say that I'm a 7ft black man with a 12 inch cock, doesn't make it true. The truth is in your actions. The percentage you contribute to these things get a "dick move bro" escalating to "hypocritical fuck" when you start preaching your "objective" ethics.

Horseshit. Those things would still be happening regardless of my support, as is evidenced by the fact that they've been here before I was born, and will be here long after I die. And if you actually bothered to look into what I had written, I already mentioned that if someone doesn't meaningfully contribute to something bad, it's not their problem. If you want to make the point that my meager pennies are contributing to a global atrocities (especially when I can't always afford more idealistic things), then it's about as valid as saying that someone who gives a criminal their money in exchange for not getting shot is 'contributing' to crime.

If you fail to support others in your community but rely on them for support (i.e. Buddhist monk) you are an anti-social dick. If you hate paying communal taxes but want the fire put out before it burns your house down, the burglars arrested before they wreck your shit and the roads you travel on to be decent no matter where you go... You are an anti-social dick. If you declare yourself to care more about animals/people whatever whilst enjoying your battery farmed sports shoes then you are also a massive raging hypocrite.

Horseshit, again. I don't expect anyone to support me, so much as I expect them to just not cause me any harm, since I don't do the same (and yes, I do volunteer work and such).
How I feel about paying taxes has nothing to do with the fact that the people who voluntarily offered to save my burning house, arrest my burglars, and manage the roads , are obligated to do so by the very fact that they said they would, and it's their job. They signed up to inconvenience themselves, I didn't.
And once again, all of those terrible, terrible things that happen to others happen independent of my actions, existence, participation, or whatever. I didn't kill those cows, enslave those children, or destroy those environments, and every single time you say 'but you contribute to it', I'll be happy to call you a contributor to robbery if you give a thief your car, in lieu of being shot

Childbirth can be fatal no matter how much the mother wants it... You crazy individual.

Well since I doubt the mother signed up for death by childbirth, obviously that's not a good thing. I don't know why I have to clarify that point, but at this point, I'm not surprised

That's such a flimsy and variable thing. Especially with so many hypersensitive muppets out there. There are so many ways in which that is impossible to accomplish.

Hence the terms of my system...

This t-shirt made a woman collapse into tears because it was suppressing her as a woman in the atheist movement and contributing to the "patriarchy".

Now the t-shirt is not offensive, contains no foul language but it caused pain. Should the woman betold not to wear it or should the feminist be told to grow up and accept other people for who they are. IT'S SUBJECTIVE!

Horseshit, again (notice a pattern here?). As far as I'm concerned, nobody can be told anything, purely on the basis that the man was minding his own business and not acting on the woman, and the woman has a right to react how she will, so long as it's not on the man (who wasn't acting on her). Accordingly, since the man wasn't acting on her (or anyone really) there is no valid basis by which you can tell him what to, and since the woman's reaction is based more on her personal emotionality than any actual loss of property or physical health, no one is obligated to heed her complaint. It's objective! See how easy that was?

He says he doesn't want to die young of heart failure... So... Chris.

If he doesn't want to die of heart failure, he really needs to stop eating all that sugar, trans-fat, grain, and seed-oil. Exercise couldn't hurt, but diet is more important

 

[teheviltwin]

Horseshit. Those things would still be happening regardless of my support, as is evidenced by the fact that they've been here before I was born, and will be here long after I die. And if you actually bothered to look into what I had written, I already mentioned that if someone doesn't meaningfully contribute to something bad, it's not their problem. If you want to make the point that my meager pennies are contributing to a global atrocities (especially when I can't always afford more idealistic things), then it's about as valid as saying that someone who gives a criminal their money in exchange for not getting shot is 'contributing' to crime.

Of course I read it. As did everyone else. And what we are trying to tell you is that "if someone doesn't meaningfully contribute to something bad, it's not their problem" is just YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. Being brought up by someone deeply effected by rationing, people need very little and can "make do and mend" or "grow their own". Your desire to have shiny things is more important to you than how you contribute to society as a whole. Which is fine. But not any kind of ethical or moral high ground.

Horseshit, again. I don't expect anyone to support me, so much as I expect them to just not cause me any harm, since I don't do the same (and yes, I do volunteer work and such).
How I feel about paying taxes has nothing to do with the fact that the people who voluntarily offered to save my burning house, arrest my burglars, and manage the roads , are obligated to do so by the very fact that they said they would, and it's their job. They signed up to inconvenience themselves, I didn't.

Where do the wages for these "volunteers" come from? Taxes. The community supports you. Depending on where you live this could even be literal if you have earthquakes. These people are most often under paid and face extremely hazardous circumstances because they want to contribute positively to their community. You can drive on the roads, swim in the sea, breathe the air or just sit on your arse eating chips if you like but without the society around you you'd be fucked.

And once again, all of those terrible, terrible things that happen to others happen independent of my actions, existence, participation, or whatever. I didn't kill those cows, enslave those children, or destroy those environments, and every single time you say 'but you contribute to it', I'll be happy to call you a contributor to robbery if you give a thief your car, in lieu of being shot

To quote Nick Cave and possibly one of my favourite lines in a song ever, you may be "one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan" but you're still part of the machine. You do not get to decide how much responsibility you bare, society does. Some may agree and some will disagree and some will be too busy watching OPL twerk to care.

Well since I doubt the mother signed up for death by childbirth, obviously that's not a good thing. I don't know why I have to clarify that point, but at this point, I'm not surprised

Because you didn't take in the point of what I was saying. Pain is an integral part of life. Emotional, physical and psychological. Not all of it is bad, some is necessary and some of it is just a massive case of "shit happens".

Hence the terms of my system...

Which, as has been proved by smrtr folks than me, is completely subjective and unworkable.

Horseshit, again (notice a pattern here?). As far as I'm concerned, nobody can be told anything, purely on the basis that the man was minding his own business and not acting on the woman, and the woman has a right to react how she will, so long as it's not on the man (who wasn't acting on her). Accordingly, since the man wasn't acting on her (or anyone really) there is no valid basis by which you can tell him what to, and since the woman's reaction is based more on her personal emotionality than any actual loss of property or physical health, no one is obligated to heed her complaint. It's objective! See how easy that was?

Actually it's also a woman wearing the shirt. She was then subjected to a lot of abuse from other women who felt wronged. It's not objective and you resolved nothing. You cant decide who's pain and suffering is greater because pain and suffering are, in themselves, subjective. The "feminists" at the convention have now had all kinds of rules changed to stop "harassment" some of which I can't even being to discuss without frothing at the mouth and biting my own keyboard.


EDIT: I'm still biting... Done now.

EDITED EDIT: If not trolling then I'm calling 'tism on this.

 

[Cwckifan]

'Tism? And no; not trolling, just engaged

 

[QI 541]

While I disagree with your assertion that 'I don't value the life of animals as much as [my] own comfort' (I do),

Do you condemn people who butcher animals even though we could all live healthy lives without it?

I do agree that my ideals are meaningless to someone who doesn't care about them, in very much the same way that research which supports the assertion that age of the earth is several billions of years old 'doesn't matter' to a young-earth creationist. The point is that there's an objective way of determining that someone who acts on such beliefs is absolutely wrong for doing so

Ethics are a set of rules. There is no true/false value to a rule. "Jumping into the sun will kill you" is an objective statement. If it's true, you will die if you jump into the sun regardless of what you believe. "Don't steal" is a rule. You can steal regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

And--as I've said many, many, many times before--it doesn't matter what they think, because there's a strong basis for determining that their actions are definitely right or wrong, and providing fair punishments accordingly. That doesn't exist with a non-objective system, even in this one. Unless, of course, you think that it's fair that a person with unpaid parking tickets should get more prison time than someone with multiple assault charges

Too bad all ethic systems are based on something non-objective, like our values.

1) We all want and\or need to live
2) We'd all like to do so in a way that we find pleasing
3) For this reason, nobody can ethically act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue this want, or meaningfully contributes to it
4) Accordingly, If someone does so, then they are in the wrong, and punishment (in the form of suppression/obligatory compensation) is necessary

1. Not everyone.
2. Not everyone.
3. Even assuming 1 and 2 are true, 3 relies on the assumption that "We all want everyone to live pleasant lives". Gets tricky when you start deciding whether or not everyone includes things like animals.

In much the same way that anti-vaccine people are convinced that some medicines are poison, or how young-earthers are certain that all evidence to the contrary is planted by the devil. It's a good thing that we have solid rules and outside verification for just this reason

The toxicity of medicine and the age of the earth are objective, and aren't affected by whether or not people believe in it. Whether or not something is right or wrong is an opinion, and is completely dependent on what people believe.

So if somebody stabs you and steals your money, it's just your opinion that they caused you a loss of property, and physical & mental health (pretty wrong things, I'd say)?

How did you go from "right and wrong are opinions" to "losing property and getting hurt are opinions'?

Well, since it's just your opinion that they did that, there's no meaningful way that they can be punished or stopped, or that you can justify compensation. You must live a very interesting life

Opinions can kill millions of people in a Holocaust, and opinions can save millions of people via activism. Opinions can be used to judge others. Opinions are meaningful as long as people's actions are strongly rooted in their opinions.

See, now you're conflating matters of personal judgement (which is entirely dependent on subjective impression), with matters of cause-and-effect, which is not. That is to say, whereas something can't be objectively tasty or pretty since that differs with one's unique mechanisms to process such information, that is not the case for right and wrong, since everything with a will is harmed (wronged) when their ability to pursue a life they want to, in the way they'd like to, is suppressed. The nature of the harm varies, as does the duration and intensity, but it's still there, at all times, undeniably. Of course, if you don't have a will, then my philosophy applies to you no more than evolution applies to an abiogenically created organism which doesn't reproduce, and it's not supposed to. For everything else though, that is an undeniable fact, so I don't know why you're still railing against it.

If protecting things with a will is objectively right, it would be defined in a way that would make that logically undeniable. "The sun is hot" is subjective, because the word "hot" isn't defined in a way that allows us to objectively determine whether or not an object is hot. "The sun is over 6000 K in temperature" is an objective statement because as long as we're all using the same definitions, "over 6000 K" is undeniable. You can deny that the sun is over 6000 K, but you can't deny that an object that's 6001 K has a temperature over 6000 K and still be using the same definitions.

You can redefine the word "right" as "protecting things with wills", and you would be objectively correct if you were using that definition, but it's really meaningless if you're the only one using that definition.

By the way, the sun isn't over 6000 K. Notice how that doesn't affect my argument at all.

raymond, I have to ask (with total sincerity) do you mean 'personal moral judgement' when you say 'ethics', because that's the only way I see your arguments. Like I said, personal judgements of any kind are purely subjective, so I have no real interest in debating those. I'm talking strictly about assessments of cause-and-effect, with a focus on determining if someone acts on another in a way that is responsible for the initiation or meaningful maintenance of an inability of the acted-upon individual to live how they'd like to. Accordingly, creating a system of laws which justify fair surrender of resources (compensation), or suppression of action on this basis is a goal as well. I'm not interested in how moral or immoral others personally judge their actions to be, and it's not what I seek to explore. Is that where we differ?

Ethics are simply a set of rules. They're all based on personal morals and values. These will always be non-objective, because rules have no true/false value. You' can choose a principle and objectively determine which ways are best for fulfilling it, but you can't separate your personal values from your ethics and morals. Even if everyone in the world shared this principle, it still wouldn't be objective.

Rules have no "correct" or "incorrect" answer. Your values have no "correct" or "incorrect" answer. They just are. This is why whenever you're asked to show why anything is wrong, you're forced to assume that the other person shares your values before you can get anywhere. You do this pretty much every time you've said "undeniably" or "clearly" or "definitely wrong".

Horseshit, again. I don't expect anyone to support me, so much as I expect them to just not cause me any harm, since I don't do the same (and yes, I do volunteer work and such).
How I feel about paying taxes has nothing to do with the fact that the people who voluntarily offered to save my burning house, arrest my burglars, and manage the roads , are obligated to do so by the very fact that they said they would, and it's their job. They signed up to inconvenience themselves, I didn't.

You know, if you see a child drowning, and you could easily save the child, but don't, you could get arrested.

 

[Cwckifan]

Of course I read it. As did everyone else. And what we are trying to tell you is that "if someone doesn't meaningfully contribute to something bad, it's not their problem" is just YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. Being brought up by someone deeply effected by rationing, people need very little and can "make do and mend" or "grow their own".

Again, how? If I have nothing to do with something bad happening, then on what basis am I responsible for it? Not what you think, but an actual basis. Are you responsible for replacing my wallet if it gets stolen, or for buying a new dog for a stranger whose pet has just died? Really, where are you getting this from?

Your desire to have shiny things is more important to you than how you contribute to society as a whole. Which is fine. But not any kind of ethical or moral high ground.

Oh, now I wouldn't say that. Besides, I'm not trying to claim an ethical high ground, just a solid one. I'm no hero, and I'm not trying to be

Where do the wages for these "volunteers" come from? Taxes. The community supports you. Depending on where you live this could even be literal if you have earthquakes. These people are most often under paid and face extremely hazardous circumstances because they want to contribute positively to their community. You can drive on the roads, swim in the sea, breathe the air or just sit on your arse eating chips if you like but without the society around you you'd be fucked.

Yes, it is very thoughtful of the community to support me, and since I'd be fucked without roads, cops, or firemen, I have great admiration for people who take on such noble jobs. The point still stands that they do what they do of their own volition, and are obligated to provide a service because they said they would. Moreover, the community supports me of its own volition as well (I work, so not literally) and if it wants to I won't stop it. I didn't request it, though, so the notion that I have to give any resources is at best dubious, and at worst tyrannical. Really, suppose I painted your house (or refurnished your apartment, or whatever) for you, and without your knowledge, and then demanded that you now must support all of my causes, regardless of whether or not you can or want to. Something tells me that your opinion would change

To quote Nick Cave and possibly one of my favourite lines in a song ever, you may be "one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan" but you're still part of the machine. You do not get to decide how much responsibility you bare, society does. Some may agree and some will disagree and some will be too busy watching OPL twerk to care.

And again, on what basis does society et to decide this? Hell, if society decides how much responsibility I should bear, that's fucking terrifying, and so I'll most definitely have an objective basis for telling them to get lost. If society suddenly decided to do the same to you, you'd know what I mean

Because you didn't take in the point of what I was saying. Pain is an integral part of life. Emotional, physical and psychological. Not all of it is bad, some is necessary and some of it is just a massive case of "shit happens".

...And so what? Sorry teheviltwin, but just because pain is a part of life, that doesn't mean that it's justified, or that we're obligated to be subjected to it. Hell, cancer and metabolic disorders are part of life too, but if eating less sugar and consuming only natural food definitely slows or stops it, shouldn't we So why treat ethics any differently?

Which, as has been proved by smrtr folks than me, is completely subjective and unworkable.

Not really. Everyone either just brings up irrelevant information, or ignores my questions\main points entirely. Really, is a math problem 'subjective and unworkable' because I can't solve it?

Actually it's also a woman wearing the shirt. She was then subjected to a lot of abuse from other women who felt wronged. It's not objective and you resolved nothing. You cant decide who's pain and suffering is greater because pain and suffering are, in themselves, subjective.

What? Where the blinking hell did you get that from, espescially considering that I already provided a solution above! As I already mentioned, the woman wearing the shirt did nothing wrong because she was minding her businuess, and the feminist also did nothing wrong, on account of she was minding her own business to. In fact, that the skeptic woman was harrassed was objectively wrong, because she didn't do anything to any of those people, period. And don't bother bringing up that the feminists were 'hurt', because unless she caused them some kind of loss of property, money, or physical health, since she didn't act on them, there was no basis by which they could ethically act on her. To resolve this issue, the skeptic should be left alone, and the feminists should be kept from harassing her

You cant decide who's pain and suffering is greater because pain and suffering are, in themselves, subjective

Again, where are you getting this from? Who 'suffered more' doesn't matter, because all I'm looking at are the facts. Really, if a robber feels more hurt that you didn't give him your money, than you do when he knifes you in the kidney and steals your wallet, is he somehow off the hook? Honestly, that's how I'm interpreting this.

The "feminists" at the convention have now had all kinds of rules changed to stop "harassment" some of which I can't even being to discuss without frothing at the mouth and biting my own keyboard.

Brother, your pain is felt. If it's any consolation, take solace in knowing that they're never right to hound someone who hasn't acted on them

EDIT: I'm still biting... Done now.

EDITED EDIT: If not trolling then I'm calling 'tism on this.

Not trolling, just genuinely trying to wrap my head around the opposition. Also, who's 'tism?

 

[Cwckifan]

Do you condemn people who butcher animals even though we could all live healthy lives without it?

They're not hurting me, and they're just providing a service they're obligated to perform, so I don't. Also, I doubt we could live well without animal protein\fat, as a whole. Some people can, I'm sure, but that's a debate for another thread

Ethics are a set of rules. There is no true/false value to a rule. "Jumping into the sun will kill you" is an objective statement. If it's true, you will die if you jump into the sun regardless of what you believe. "Don't steal" is a rule. You can steal regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

What do you mean by ' There is no true/false value to a rule'? Is it not a rule that everything that's real can be perceived in some way, and that all things are made of matter? Hell, 'don't steal' is really more of an order, than anything else

Too bad all ethic systems are based on something non-objective, like our values.

I know, it's a crying shame

1) We all want and\or need to live
2) We'd all like to do so in a way that we find pleasing
3) For this reason, nobody can ethically act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue this want, or meaningfully contributes to it
4) Accordingly, If someone does so, then they are in the wrong, and punishment (in the form of suppression/obligatory compensation) is necessary

1. Not everyone.
2. Not everyone.
3. Even assuming 1 and 2 are true, 3 relies on the assumption that "We all want everyone to live pleasant lives". Gets tricky when you start deciding whether or not everyone includes things like animals.

1. Well if you don't want or need to live, then I guess you don't have a will, which means there's nothing to be suppressed, and thus no harm to result. Accordingly, my philosophy excludes things without wills
2. If you don't want to live how you'd like to\want to, then you fit in the category of 'will-less beings', and are not included
3. Nope; all 3 does is give the logical basis for why it's wrong to act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it. So even if you only take pleasure from hurting others, 3 explains why you can't do so ethically (I.E., in a way undeserving of punishment)

And yes, all creatures with a will are covered under this ideology

The toxicity of medicine and the age of the earth are objective, and aren't affected by whether or not people believe in it. Whether or not something is right or wrong is an opinion, and is completely dependent on what people believe.

And then in the next section...

How did you go from "right and wrong are opinions" to "losing property and getting hurt are opinions'?

Well, losing property and getting hurt are wrong, and you yourself said that right and wrong are just opinions. Am I missing something here?

Opinions can kill millions of people in a Holocaust, and opinions can save millions of people via activism. Opinions can be used to judge others. Opinions are meaningful as long as people's actions are strongly rooted in their opinions.

If they're not objective, though, then there's no valid way they can be justifiably pursued.

If protecting things with a will is objectively right, it would be defined in a way that would make that logically undeniable. "The sun is hot" is subjective, because the word "hot" isn't defined in a way that allows us to objectively determine whether or not an object is hot. "The sun is over 6000 K in temperature" is an objective statement because as long as we're all using the same definitions, "over 6000 K" is undeniable. You can deny that the sun is over 6000 K, but you can't deny that an object that's 6001 K has a temperature over 6000 K and still be using the same definitions.

Okay...

You can redefine the word "right" as "protecting things with wills", and you would be objectively correct if you were using that definition, but it's really meaningless if you're the only one using that definition.

Right, in this context, means not acting on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it. Really, everything is defined in my philosophy, so my mistake for not clarifying that earlier. I disagree about how many people have to use a definition for it to be meaningful, but you're entitled to your ideas

By the way, the sun isn't over 6000 K. Notice how that doesn't affect my argument at all.

Yup, those are the benefits of not debating heliocentric ethics...

Ethics are simply a set of rules. They're all based on personal morals and values. These will always be non-objective, because rules have no true/false value. You' can choose a principle and objectively determine which ways are best for fulfilling it, but you can't separate your personal values from your ethics and morals. Even if everyone in the world shared this principle, it still wouldn't be objective.

Rules are true or false, though! I'm really confused by what you mean here, because it makes no sense. If something is a rule, then it is--by its very nature--how something must go in order for a goal to be reached. 'X' must happen, or 'Y' can't. Where does emotion or subjective impression factor in here, when it can't get more objective than that?!

Rules have no "correct" or "incorrect" answer. Your values have no "correct" or "incorrect" answer. They just are. This is why whenever you're asked to show why anything is wrong, you're forced to assume that the other person shares your values before you can get anywhere. You do this pretty much every time you've said "undeniably" or "clearly" or "definitely wrong".

Okay, here's my last attempt to try to get what you're saying:

1) Ethics are set of rules
2) Rules are personal judgements about what actions are right to take, and which are wrong to take
3) Since personal judgments are always subjective, however, what actions are right to take, and which are wrong to take will always reflect how we (personally) feel things should be, meaning they will never be the same for everyone

Is that it, because if so, I've already gone over this. I'll do it again, but really...

You know, if you see a child drowning, and you could easily save the child, but don't, you could get arrested.

I'd hope so; it'd be pretty shitty just to let someone die like that, I think

 

[QI 541]

They're not hurting me, and they're just providing a service they're obligated to perform, so I don't. Also, I doubt we could live well without animal protein\fat, as a whole. Some people can, I'm sure, but that's a debate for another thread

But animals want to live. The act of killing animals violates 1.

Is it not a rule that everything that's real can be perceived in some way, and that all things are made of matter?

What kind of crazy definition are you using for the word "rule"? Rules can be broken. You can't just choose to not follow the laws of gravity, even if you don't believe in gravity. Maybe you're confusing it with scientific laws.

Hell, 'don't steal' is really more of an order, than anything else

Rule number 1: No stealing. Rule number 2: No drinks near the computers. Yeah, I guess rules aren't that different from orders.

1. Well if you don't want or need to live, then I guess you don't have a will, which means there's nothing to be suppressed, and thus no harm to result. Accordingly, my philosophy excludes things without wills
2. If you don't want to live how you'd like to\want to, then you fit in the category of 'will-less beings', and are not included
3. Nope; all 3 does is give the logical basis for why it's wrong to act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it. So even if you only take pleasure from hurting others, 3 explains why you can't do so ethically (I.E., in a way undeserving of punishment)

And yes, all creatures with a will are covered under this ideology

I'm going to let 1 and 2 drop, since 3 assumes 1 and 2 are true anyways.

3. So you can come to the conclusion that hurting others is ethically wrong without the premise "It is ethically wrong to hurt others"?

Well, losing property and getting hurt are wrong, and you yourself said that right and wrong are just opinions. Am I missing something here?

Bizarre logic. That's like saying that the sun is hot, hot is an adjective, so the sun is an adjective.

If they're not objective, though, then there's no valid way they can be justifiably pursued.

Your statement makes no sense. How can an opinion be objective?

Right, in this context, means not acting on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it. Really, everything is defined in my philosophy, so my mistake for not clarifying that earlier.

If that's the definition you've been using this entire time, then this entire argument is moot. Everyone else was using this definition: "Actions that are morally justified", and "morally justified" isn't defined in a way that would allow you to objectively determine whether or not an action is morally justified. No definition is objectively better than another, but you really should make sure you're using the same definitions as the person you're conversing with.

I disagree about how many people have to use a definition for it to be meaningful, but you're entitled to your ideas

Words are for communication. They rely on you and the person you're communicating to to agree on what a word means before using it. If you just go around redefining words by yourself, you're going to have massive communication problems. Probably the reason for a lot of headaches in this thread.

I can redefine the word "apple" to mean "deadly poison" and then objectively argue that giving someone an apple would violate your principle 1, but it's pointless because when you redefine words like that, you change the premises of the argument. If no one else is using those definitions, then your argument is irrelevant, because the premises that you depend on with your definition are no longer true (Apple isn't a deadly poison anymore). You redefined the word "right", and I suspect you also redefined the words "ethics" and "objective". You also redefined the word "rule" to be the same as "physical law" or "physical reality". Two arguments using the same words but different definitions are not the same argument.

Rules are true or false, though! I'm really confused by what you mean here, because it makes no sense. If something is a rule, then it is--by its very nature--how something must go in order for a goal to be reached. 'X' must happen, or 'Y' can't. Where does emotion or subjective impression factor in here, when it can't get more objective than that?!

No, you're confusing physical laws and physical reality with human laws, and then stretching the definition of the word "rule" so that it's a physical law.

In case those comparisons to the rules of basketball and all of those times I said rules don't have true/false values weren't clear enough...
when I say "rule" I obviously mean something closer to human laws rather than physical laws.

 

[CWCissey]

How do I stop getting updates for this topic?

 

[Cwckifan]

But animals want to live. The act of killing animals violates 1.

Indeed it does, which is why I don't do it, and don't encourage or condone it. At the same time, those butchers and hunters and pelters--in addition to having services to provide, and difficulties to cope with--haven't done anything to me, so I don't condemn them. I don't like their practices, but I don't have to condemn them

What kind of crazy definition are you using for the word "rule"? Rules can be broken. You can't just choose to not follow the laws of gravity, even if you don't believe in gravity. Maybe you're confusing it with scientific laws.

Yeah, something along those lines, only I'm talking about why one can't do 'A', without being deserving of 'B'; not that they won't because it's not possible

Rule number 1: No stealing. Rule number 2: No drinks near the computers. Yeah, I guess rules aren't that different from orders.

...Fair enough

I'm going to let 1 and 2 drop, since 3 assumes 1 and 2 are true anyways.

Fair enough...

3. So you can come to the conclusion that hurting others is ethically wrong without the premise "It is ethically wrong to hurt others"?

Yup. I've already defined 'right' and 'wrong' without a need to appeal to feeling, so it's really more of a statement then a sentiment

Bizarre logic. That's like saying that the sun is hot, hot is an adjective, so the sun is an adjective.

Admittedly, I should've thought that through more

Your statement makes no sense. How can an opinion be objective?

Exactly; that's why ethics and actions can't be justifiably based on them

If that's the definition you've been using this entire time, then this entire argument is moot. Everyone else was using this definition: "Actions that are morally justified", and "morally justified" isn't defined in a way that would allow you to objectively determine whether or not an action is morally justified. No definition is objectively better than another, but you really should make sure you're using the same definitions as the person you're conversing with.

Let me see if I get this:
My 'right'= Not acting on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it.
Their 'right'= An action that is morally justified
Good so far? If so, then what does 'morally justified' mean? Does it mean 'what someone feels is right'? If so, then it has no place here, because I care about cause-and-effect, not feelings. People can justify all kinds of bad behavior to themselves if they want, but you can't deny cause-and-effect. Moreover, since it involves acting on another, then the effect of the behavior will be taken from the point of view of the effected, since they're the one being acted on.

Words are for communication. They rely on you and the person you're communicating to to agree on what a word means before using it. If you just go around redefining words by yourself, you're going to have massive communication problems. Probably the reason for a lot of headaches in this thread.

Really? So this whole cyclical and non-productive circle-jerk of a debate has basically been due to issues with semantics? Well, that at least explains it, I guess

I can redefine the word "apple" to mean "deadly poison" and then objectively argue that giving someone an apple would violate your principle 1, but it's pointless because when you redefine words like that, you change the premises of the argument. If no one else is using those definitions, then your argument is irrelevant, because the premises that you depend on with your definition are no longer true (Apple isn't a deadly poison anymore). You redefined the word "right", and I suspect you also redefined the words "ethics" and "objective". You also redefined the word "rule" to be the same as "physical law" or "physical reality". Two arguments using the same words but different definitions are not the same argument.

Well then, there you go. It's less like arguing with a wall, and more like shouting at a tornado; we've been debating different things this whole time, but since we're just using the same words, it's just been a source of confusion. Well a lesson is learned, so there's that

when I say "rule" I obviously mean something closer to human laws rather than physical laws.

So things you can do, but which are not seen as good things?

 

[Dark Mirror Hole]

Guys, this thread is getting quite flammable. Be careful k?

 

[Niachu]

Indeed.

I'm tickled people want to have a thought-provoking discussion but if this whole "debate" keeps going in one big circle, and an inflammatory one at that, I might as well lock the topic. If no has any qualms with that I'm gonna go ahead with it.

 

[QI 541]

Yeah, something along those lines, only I'm talking about why one can't do 'A', without being deserving of 'B'; not that they won't because it's not possible

What someone deserves is subjective by definition.

Yup. I've already defined 'right' and 'wrong' without a need to appeal to feeling, so it's really more of a statement then a sentiment

No one else, especially the people whom you're conversing with, shares that definition. If I redefine 'hot' as 'anything greater than 5000K', I have an objective way to show which objects can be considered 'hot', but saying "The sun is objectively hot" is nonsensical to everyone else.

Exactly; that's why ethics and actions can't be justifiably based on them

There's nothing else we can base them on. How did you define 'right' and 'wrong'? How did you determine which definitions for right and wrong are objectively correct?

My 'right'= Not acting on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue their want to live how they want/like to, or meaningfully contributes to it.
Their 'right'= An action that is morally justified

Good so far? If so, then what does 'morally justified' mean? Does it mean 'what someone feels is right'? If so, then it has no place here, because I care about cause-and-effect, not feelings. People can justify all kinds of bad behavior to themselves if they want, but you can't deny cause-and-effect. Moreover, since it involves acting on another, then the effect of the behavior will be taken from the point of view of the effected, since they're the one being acted on.

Like I said, you can objectively determine ways to fulfill a principle, but that doesn't make your ethics system objective. What's the reason why we should use this principle as a basis?

It's like redefining the word "hot" because you don't like the fact that it's subjective, and then using that new definition in normal conversation while expecting others to agree, even though no one else is using that definition. And then saying "Well it doesn't matter if others don't agree, it's objectively correct! The sun is over 5000K!"

You don't seem to get that people aren't denying that the sun is over 5000K, just as they aren't denying that stealing someone's car is harmful to others. It's not relevant.

So things you can do, but which are not seen as good things?

The same definition that everyone else uses. As in, "rules of chess" or "rules of basketball" or "rules in school".

Indeed.

I'm tickled people want to have a thought-provoking discussion but if this whole "debate" keeps going in one big circle, and an inflammatory one at that, I might as well lock the topic. If no has any qualms with that I'm gonna go ahead with it.

I think this debate's been pretty civil so far, and it shouldn't last much longer anyways.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

If I have nothing to do with something bad happening, then on what basis am I responsible for it?

You keep complaining that no one else is reading/understanding your posts, yet your only response to objective facts that others show is to say "no I'm not" as if you can just wish it true. You contribute money to systems and industries that do things you claim not to like. Your contribution is small compared to the overall bankroll, but it is not nothing, and without people like you to add their contributions together, those industries wouldn't exist. You want to talk objective? That is objectively fact. You contribute. Right there. That is objective. Just like saying "I won't die if I jump into lava" won't actually change the fact that you will die if you jump into lava... saying the words "I don't contribute" doesn't change the fact that yes, you do contribute.

Next you're gonna argue that you don't contribute "meaningfully", right? Which is subjective, so how does that reconcile with your whole "my opinions are objectively correct for the universe" nonsense?

But animals want to live. The act of killing animals violates 1.

Indeed it does, which is why I don't do it, and don't encourage or condone it.

Sure you do! You buy the product.

Also, I doubt we could live well without animal protein\fat, as a whole. Some people can, I'm sure, but that's a debate for another thread

Are you daft? Every human being on the planet is perfectly capable of living without animal meat if they have a proper vegetarian/vegan diet. I thought it was just ethics over which you say things without thinking/doing research, but apparently it's other subjects too. Just because an idea would not support your argument does not excuse you to not only dismiss it, but to call it wrong outright without even looking into it.

Also, live "well"? Subjective alert! Define "well", and explain objectively how many points on the well scale your life has a right to be. Also explain how many points on the well scale the cow's life deserves to be, and how many points on the well scale the life of the child who makes your shoes deserves to be. Then explain what you are doing to bring this to pass, or - if you are not doing anything to bring it to pass - explain objectively how there can be any meaning to say that someone "has a right" to live well if it's not something worth any contributors putting effort into.

1. Well if you don't want or need to live, then I guess you don't have a will, which means there's nothing to be suppressed, and thus no harm to result. Accordingly, my philosophy excludes things without wills

So you're saying that the will to live is the only legitimate "will" to exist. My will eat a burger, my will to buy a video game, my will to read a book or participate in a bullshit forum argument are not truly "wills", and apparently if someone believes they have a cause to sacrifice or kill themselves for something you deny that to be a "will" as well. You have made a subjective determination regarding the definition of the concept of will. Explain why you are qualified to make this determination, and why anyone who disagrees with you is "objectively" wrong.

2. If you don't want to live how you'd like to\want to, then you fit in the category of 'will-less beings', and are not included

You are assuming a subjective definition of the words "want to live how you'd like". Say a person wants to commit suicide. Say they're not depressed or mentally compromised, they've thought a lot about it, and that's the conclusion they came to. Then for them, "want to live how they'd like" means continue until the time, place, and method of death of their choosing. Who are you to arbitrarily call them wrong?

I'm tickled people want to have a thought-provoking discussion but if this whole "debate" keeps going in one big circle, and an inflammatory one at that, I might as well lock the topic. If no has any qualms with that I'm gonna go ahead with it.

Please do, but I ask you to pin this thread somewhere so that whenever anyone asks if we can get Chris to join the forum... THIS is what they're asking for. My current signature is what they're asking for. Cwckifan has a better command of english but otherwise their egocentric "of course I'm right, how could I not be?" mindsets are largely the same.

 

[Cwckifan]

You keep complaining that no one else is reading/understanding your posts, yet your only response to objective facts that others show is to say "no I'm not" as if you can just wish it true. You contribute money to systems and industries that do things you claim not to like. Your contribution is small compared to the overall bankroll, but it is not nothing, and without people like you to add their contributions together, those industries wouldn't exist. You want to talk objective? That is objectively fact. You contribute. Right there. That is objective. Just like saying "I won't die if I jump into lava" won't actually change the fact that you will die if you jump into lava... saying the words "I don't contribute" doesn't change the fact that yes, you do contribute.

Next you're gonna argue that you don't contribute "meaningfully", right? Which is subjective, so how does that reconcile with your whole "my opinions are objectively correct for the universe" nonsense?

Alec, I don't deny that I contribute, and yes, it's not meaningfully. Meaningfully basically means either a majority, or--at the very least--a sizable minority. Really, I don't now how many times I've repeated 'it'd happen if I was involved or not', so there you go. It's not significant, and unless you can prove (not what you feel, but what is there) that my contribution alone makes up a majority or sizable minority of these things, drop it. Also, I don't know where you got that 'right or wrong opinions' thing either, so please drop that too

Sure you do! You buy the product.

Animal was already dead, and I had nothing to do with its slaughter. Next post, please

Are you daft? Every human being on the planet is perfectly capable of living without animal meat if they have a proper vegetarian/vegan diet.

I'm not taking about just meat, but animal protein (milk, eggs, blood), and healthy animal fats. Ovo-lacto vegetarianism is fine for some, I suppose, but for the dairy intolerant among us, not so much. And yes, Alec, veganism is so healthy, that that is precisely why there has literally never been a single known culture in the whole of Human history that has survived solely on non-animal products alone.

I thought it was just ethics over which you say things without thinking/doing research, but apparently it's other subjects too. Just because an idea would not support your argument does not excuse you to not only dismiss it, but to call it wrong outright without even looking into it.

I did veganism for a few months (no animal products, organic veggies, fruits, and grains, etc.), and nearly became diabetic. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, as I know of this happening to others as well. Lots of people live just fine without fruits or veggies (Masai, native Inuit, etc.). Like I said though, debate for another thread

Also, live "well"? Subjective alert! Define "well", and explain objectively how many points on the well scale your life has a right to be. Also explain how many points on the well scale the cow's life deserves to be, and how many points on the well scale the life of the child who makes your shoes deserves to be.

'Well', in this case, means in a way in which one is pleased, of their own volition. A Human, cow, or any other being with a will equally deserves to be as well as they want to be (or pursue this state), by the simple fact that they all have their own preferred methods of coping with life, would like to, and are not acting negatively on anyone else in being so.

Then explain what you are doing to bring this to pass, or - if you are not doing anything to bring it to pass - explain objectively how there can be any meaning to say that someone "has a right" to live well if it's not something worth any contributors putting effort into.

To bring this to pass, I don't act on others, rarely make requests, take care of myself, and provide my services to others when possible

So you're saying that the will to live is the only legitimate "will" to exist. My will eat a burger, my will to buy a video game, my will to read a book or participate in a bullshit forum argument are not truly "wills", and apparently if someone believes they have a cause to sacrifice or kill themselves for something you deny that to be a "will" as well. You have made a subjective determination regarding the definition of the concept of will. Explain why you are qualified to make this determination, and why anyone who disagrees with you is "objectively" wrong.

Alec, where the blinking hell did you get that from any of what I wrote? Seriously, are we reading the same words here? Did you miss that whole 'people have a will to live how they'd like, and are free to pursue it' part? So yes, whether it's your will to eat a burger, read a book, or miss the point of my arguments (again), it's how you'd like to live, so I can't ethically tell you can't, or make any progress towards doing so. Of course, if your will is to act on another in a way that causes them harm, then you have caused a loss, and the other person can ethically seek fair compensation. Moreover, since you can't do any of that without being alive, yes, life does play a part in that.

You are assuming a subjective definition of the words "want to live how you'd like". Say a person wants to commit suicide. Say they're not depressed or mentally compromised, they've thought a lot about it, and that's the conclusion they came to. Then for them, "want to live how they'd like" means continue until the time, place, and method of death of their choosing. Who are you to arbitrarily call them wrong?

Again, where is this coming from? If making plans towards your death is how you'd like to live your life, then again, I can't act on you because of it (unless, of course, you promised to provide a service). If you're not alive anymore because of it, then you certainly don't have a will and can't be hurt, so what would it matter what I did?

Please do, but I ask you to pin this thread somewhere so that whenever anyone asks if we can get Chris to join the forum... THIS is what they're asking for. My current signature is what they're asking for. Cwckifan has a better command of english but otherwise their egocentric "of course I'm right, how could I not be?" mindsets are largely the same.

[/quote][/quote]
Alec, I have tried over, and over, and over, and over again to reason with you, but to no avail. You've either ignored my points, seen things that aren't there, or have made wild extrapolations which couldn't be more irrelevant if they were talking about brain surgery. Honestly, I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up how they feel, since how one feels isn't part of my philosophy, as it's about cause and effect. If you hurt someone, they get hurt, and can be compensated; that's it. What's so 'egocentric' and 'subjective' about that? Why is this not clear? Really, raymond was spot-on in his assertion that we're effectively just screaming into the wind, since we sure as hell aren't speaking the same language.

 

[Bgheff]

At any rate, this discussion had been a dead horse for pages, since you are all trying to convince one person his personal beliefs are not absolute for the universe, and he doesn't seem to understand what you mean.

this discussion had been a dead horse for pages

dead horse

If it's been 15 pages and both sides have made zero progress, I say close the thread.

 

[The Hunter]

I didn't even want this thread. I thought it was moved to general, and I was prepared to lock it and move it back, but it's out of my control now. I say lock it. I honestly have no idea what the hell this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Niachu]

If anyone feels dissatisfied, you're more than free to create a more open-ended topic to discuss your values.