Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Life has no meaning

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:56:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I came to this conclusion a loooong time ago.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!

Descriptive ethics is a matter for psychologists to work out. I don't think it is very important to a philosopher who is trying to work out the nature of morality. It would be like a nutritionist concerning him or herself with what foods people like when he or she is determining what is objectively healthy food.

However, for nearly every human, their own welfare, and that of at least a few other sentient beings matter. In other words, nearly everyone values their own welfare and that of others. In recognition of this, we can develop systems of normative ethics which make claims that must be internally consistent in order to qualify as objective and logical. Moral realism (in my view) is based on this.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!

Descriptive ethics is a matter for psychologists to work out. I don't think it is very important to a philosopher who is trying to work out the nature of morality. It would be like a nutritionist concerning him or herself with what foods people like when he or she is determining what is objectively healthy food.

However, for nearly every human, their own welfare, and that of at least a few other sentient beings matter. In other words, nearly everyone values their own welfare and that of others. In recognition of this, we can develop systems of normative ethics which make claims that must be internally consistent in order to qualify as objective and logical. Moral realism (in my view) is based on this.

That's true. But the more complex the moral situation, the more subjective and answerless it is. I can accept that everyone wants whatever aids the welfare of themselves and others, but the more complex the moral situation the less objective the answer to that desire. Take abortion for instance. No amount of thinking or arguing will lead us to the correct answer, because a correct answer does not exist, even when we're both measuring which side of the issue best considers individual welfare and welfare of others....the pro-lifer would argue that abortion kills lives because he feels that it does. and thus will assert the prohibition of abortion to be best for the welfare of ourselves and others. The pro-choicer lacks that feeling, so has no basis to believe abortion is harmful.

Once two people don't have agreeing emotional inclinations, there is no way to reconcile that disagreement, for there is no mutually agreed basis from which to measure the correctness of both stances.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 1:18:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 12:40:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM, vbaculum wrote the motherfvcking truth.

lol
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 2:28:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

True, but I don't think that necessarily means consensus is NEVER possible. Most people already hold common views in regards to the unjustifiability rape, murder, etc. Convincing people to drop incorrect views and adopt correct ones is hard but not impossible. Just look at the various scientific revolutions throughout history. We've gone from a species that believed that the weather was caused by spirits to realizing there are entirely reasonable and rational explanations in just a few thousand years. If that doesn't make you optimistic I don't know what will. You can't expect full rationality over night.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

Not true. Discourse ethics relies simply on the presuppositions necessary to justify propositions (and not just ethical propositions but any logical statement). Certain norms MUST be presumed if one is to engage in justification. There's no statements saying we ought not infringe on self ownership, it just says that in order to justify infringing on self ownership, one must take as presupposed the justification of self ownership. Thus it's impossible to justify such an action. No is or ought is needed in this case.

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

I agree, reason (meaning the summation of logic, experience, concepts etc.) is the only legitimate means to justify a proposition. To argue otherwise is to use reason and thus performatively contradict one's self. Discourse ethics FTW.

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Again, emotion is useless in such a matter, however you're too stuck on the view that all systems of ethics focus completely on IF statements. Again, discourse ethics does not. Justification is still possible even without IF's or emotions.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

I agree again that emotion is useless, but not all ethical systems rely on whim alone. Rand argued that life is the requisite for any values to be created and so must be the highest value. This doesn't rely on if's or emotion. There are several ethical schools that don't rely on whim OR hypothetical imperatives.

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!

Become an anarchist then. Seriously, how do you justify the State's existence or action by it if you don't believe in any sort of ethics?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 5:44:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Y U No Respond?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 7:56:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All unanswered moral questions are answered when it is your turn.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
goodwill
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:54:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Only you can put some meaning in your life. You can go horribly wrong with it, but it's still your life. Yes, it can be subjective in nature and there might not be definite meaning for life. but f-ck it, no one else can tell you the meaning of your life. It's whatever you make out of it. Morality? If you have doubt about something, then there's something wrong with it or with yourself.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 5:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 1:18:33 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 3/3/2012 12:40:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM, vbaculum wrote the motherfvcking truth.

lol

Thanks Ren.

Up yours johnnyboy LOL.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 6:35:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 12:54:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!

Descriptive ethics is a matter for psychologists to work out. I don't think it is very important to a philosopher who is trying to work out the nature of morality. It would be like a nutritionist concerning him or herself with what foods people like when he or she is determining what is objectively healthy food.

However, for nearly every human, their own welfare, and that of at least a few other sentient beings matter. In other words, nearly everyone values their own welfare and that of others. In recognition of this, we can develop systems of normative ethics which make claims that must be internally consistent in order to qualify as objective and logical. Moral realism (in my view) is based on this.

That's true. But the more complex the moral situation, the more subjective and answerless it is. I can accept that everyone wants whatever aids the welfare of themselves and others, but the more complex the moral situation the less objective the answer to that desire. Take abortion for instance. No amount of thinking or arguing will lead us to the correct answer, because a correct answer does not exist, even when we're both measuring which side of the issue best considers individual welfare and welfare of others....the pro-lifer would argue that abortion kills lives because he feels that it does. and thus will assert the prohibition of abortion to be best for the welfare of ourselves and others. The pro-choicer lacks that feeling, so has no basis to believe abortion is harmful.

Yes, abortion is a complicated moral problem. However, as with anything in science or philosophy, the complexity of a problem does not diminish the objectivity of the solution to the problem. Complexity does, however, create the illusion that a solution is so difficult to reach that it will elude us forever.

Pro-lifers do presumably feel that abortion kills lives. But once that intuition is articulated (translated into language), it becomes subject to critical examination. If someone who is pro-choice has an ethical belief that all human life is worth preserving then he or she is forced to explain why abortion is exempt from his or her moral principle. The argument is lost to the pro-choicer if he or she can't provide a logical and internally consistent reason for exempting unborn fetuses from his or her other normative ethical beliefs about preserving human life.

Once the descriptive becomes the normative (once feelings are articulated into moral language), the operations of logic are in control. Feelings are discarded. Since almost all humans have moral intuitions, each human, in order to make moral claims, must enter them into the normative theater - a realm of language, logic and objectivity. Here, the veracity of ethical statements are subject to the same rules of logic that any other claim about the world is subjected to. Thus, ethical claims are not subjective claims. They are objective claims made in the context of existing moral frameworks (the normative theater) that humans must and always will produce.

Once two people don't have agreeing emotional inclinations, there is no way to reconcile that disagreement, for there is no mutually agreed basis from which to measure the correctness of both stances.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 6:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 6:35:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Yes, abortion is a complicated moral problem. However, as with anything in science or philosophy, the complexity of a problem does not diminish the objectivity of the solution to the problem. Complexity does, however, create the illusion that a solution is so difficult to reach that it will elude us forever.

Pro-lifers do presumably feel that abortion kills lives. But once that intuition is articulated (translated into language), it becomes subject to critical examination. If someone who is pro-choice has an ethical belief that all human life is worth preserving then he or she is forced to explain why abortion is exempt from his or her moral principle. The argument is lost to the pro-choicer if he or she can't provide a logical and internally consistent reason for exempting unborn fetuses from his or her other normative ethical beliefs about preserving human life.

Once the descriptive becomes the normative (once feelings are articulated into moral language), the operations of logic are in control. Feelings are discarded. Since almost all humans have moral intuitions, each human, in order to make moral claims, must enter them into the normative theater - a realm of language, logic and objectivity. Here, the veracity of ethical statements are subject to the same rules of logic that any other claim about the world is subjected to. Thus, ethical claims are not subjective claims. They are objective claims made in the context of existing moral frameworks (the normative theater) that humans must and always will produce.

An interesting note, I completely agree with this post, however you and I presumably come to disametrically opposed conclusions as far as ethics is concerned.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 6:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 6:39:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:35:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Yes, abortion is a complicated moral problem. However, as with anything in science or philosophy, the complexity of a problem does not diminish the objectivity of the solution to the problem. Complexity does, however, create the illusion that a solution is so difficult to reach that it will elude us forever.

Pro-lifers do presumably feel that abortion kills lives. But once that intuition is articulated (translated into language), it becomes subject to critical examination. If someone who is pro-choice has an ethical belief that all human life is worth preserving then he or she is forced to explain why abortion is exempt from his or her moral principle. The argument is lost to the pro-choicer if he or she can't provide a logical and internally consistent reason for exempting unborn fetuses from his or her other normative ethical beliefs about preserving human life.

Once the descriptive becomes the normative (once feelings are articulated into moral language), the operations of logic are in control. Feelings are discarded. Since almost all humans have moral intuitions, each human, in order to make moral claims, must enter them into the normative theater - a realm of language, logic and objectivity. Here, the veracity of ethical statements are subject to the same rules of logic that any other claim about the world is subjected to. Thus, ethical claims are not subjective claims. They are objective claims made in the context of existing moral frameworks (the normative theater) that humans must and always will produce.

An interesting note, I completely agree with this post, however you and I presumably come to disametrically opposed conclusions as far as ethics is concerned.

How do you mean?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 6:45:17 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/4/2012 6:39:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:

An interesting note, I completely agree with this post, however you and I presumably come to disametrically opposed conclusions as far as ethics is concerned.

How do you mean?

I mean our ethical systems which we deduce are presumably completely different, even though we both think ethical truths can be deduced and hold rational consistency as a requisite for a justified ethical system. I think it comes out most in our political philosophies. You seem to be more liberal while I'm an anarchist. Political philosophy is simply the extension of interpersonal ethics, so our ethical systems must also be different.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 4:18:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 12:19:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/2/2012 8:51:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no way through which humanity will reach consensus on what is right and wrong. Also consider that morality receives high influence from biology, and further influence from culture, upbringing, and experiences. Rarely do we act morally out of reason. Often do we act morally out of emotion. Even what you may think is reason, likely has severe emotional bias.

There are 2 ways to justify morality: 1. reason, 2. emotion. If one tried to use reason to justify a moral obligation, then he needs an IF statement. You can't just say we OUGHT not allow theft. You must say, we OUGHT not allow theft IF____. But even then, some people may not agree with the IF not care about that end - hence not caring about the ought (the means).

If one tried to use emotion to justify a moral obligation. Well emotions are as vague, variable, and non-universal as anything in the world. So using emotion to justify morality means those statements of OUGHT only apply to those individuals that feel that emotional inclination!

In the end, I cannot justify to you why abortion is wrong, because you neither feel that it is emotionally, and nor do you agree with the "IF" portion of whatever ought statement was used against abortion.

Morality in the sense we're deluded into believing it exists in, does not actually exist. Morality is a whim and a desire to attain power and universalize that emotional whim. Whereas emotional whims among different individuals will be conflicting and mutually exclusive, there is no base reason to go with yours, and the winner of that argument will be entirely arbitrary!

This whole post is probably extremely unclear because this concept is extremely difficult to transcribe into words. But, just a thought. I think morality is so incredibly subjective and answer-less that the battle for who is right and who is wrong in the abortion debate, in the eugenics debate, in the euthanasia debate etc. etc., is utterly futile!

Descriptive ethics is a matter for psychologists to work out. I don't think it is very important to a philosopher who is trying to work out the nature of morality. It would be like a nutritionist concerning him or herself with what foods people like when he or she is determining what is objectively healthy food.

However, for nearly every human, their own welfare, and that of at least a few other sentient beings matter. In other words, nearly everyone values their own welfare and that of others. In recognition of this, we can develop systems of normative ethics which make claims that must be internally consistent in order to qualify as objective and logical. Moral realism (in my view) is based on this.

^Like