Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The Morality of Perpetual Existence?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 10:08:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's a quick question for you.

If, by some possibility/hypothetical, we were able to extend the existence of humanity and the human species past the death of the sun, and into eternity (read: the death of the universe), would this be a moral, or right thing to do? Why?

I kind of have the sense that, even though I'm a naturalist, allowing the species to exist for practically forever is almost something of a perversion of the concept of human existence itself. Not only are individual humans mortal, but isn't it also true that naturally the entire species should be as well, albeit on a much longer timeframe?
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
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 1:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:08:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Here's a quick question for you.

If, by some possibility/hypothetical, we were able to extend the existence of humanity and the human species past the death of the sun, and into eternity (read: the death of the universe), would this be a moral, or right thing to do? Why?

I kind of have the sense that, even though I'm a naturalist, allowing the species to exist for practically forever is almost something of a perversion of the concept of human existence itself. Not only are individual humans mortal, but isn't it also true that naturally the entire species should be as well, albeit on a much longer timeframe?

It doesn't seem moral or immoral to me- just neutral. And whose to say that it would be a perversion of nature (as I assume is what you mean) for us to use our natural ability of intelligence to solve a complicated problem? Seems like it would be more unnatural for us to sit and wait for our demise given our natural drive to continue living. Also, is it always true that if something is true of the part, it is true of the whole? I don't think so. Humanity doesn't have to be finite just because each individual human is.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 2:20:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do, or do not, there is no should. That's my perversion on Yoda.

Some species in the universe will probably do it. Many, actually. And then those remaining species will compete for domination of the universe. Then perhaps we will even go beyond the universe.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 7:54:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 2:20:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do, or do not, there is no should. That's my perversion on Yoda.

Some species in the universe will probably do it. Many, actually. And then those remaining species will compete for domination of the universe. Then perhaps we will even go beyond the universe.

This. "Should" is dependent on a malleable premise. To establish what humanity should do, you must first establish a desired end. And then only to whom that end applies should they follow your course of action. There is no such thing as an objective should/ought.
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 8:23:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 10:08:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Here's a quick question for you.

If, by some possibility/hypothetical, we were able to extend the existence of humanity and the human species past the death of the sun, and into eternity (read: the death of the universe), would this be a moral, or right thing to do? Why?

I kind of have the sense that, even though I'm a naturalist, allowing the species to exist for practically forever is almost something of a perversion of the concept of human existence itself. Not only are individual humans mortal, but isn't it also true that naturally the entire species should be as well, albeit on a much longer timeframe?

I would consider it neutral if it didn't affecta anything else.

In my view, morality does not only apply to humans, but also everything else in existence.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 9:32:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 2:20:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do, or do not, there is no should. That's my perversion on Yoda.

Some species in the universe will probably do it. Many, actually. And then those remaining species will compete for domination of the universe. Then perhaps we will even go beyond the universe.

Yeah, to universe number 2.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 7:54:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/24/2012 2:20:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do, or do not, there is no should. That's my perversion on Yoda.

Some species in the universe will probably do it. Many, actually. And then those remaining species will compete for domination of the universe. Then perhaps we will even go beyond the universe.

This. "Should" is dependent on a malleable premise. To establish what humanity should do, you must first establish a desired end. And then only to whom that end applies should they follow your course of action. There is no such thing as an objective should/ought.

I had a feeling an ike comment wasn't far behind that sentiment :)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 4:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 7:54:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/24/2012 2:20:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do, or do not, there is no should. That's my perversion on Yoda.

Some species in the universe will probably do it. Many, actually. And then those remaining species will compete for domination of the universe. Then perhaps we will even go beyond the universe.

This. "Should" is dependent on a malleable premise. To establish what humanity should do, you must first establish a desired end. And then only to whom that end applies should they follow your course of action. There is no such thing as an objective should/ought.

Nihilism ftw!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 4:51:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was thinking of this and I was Chaplin's "Great Dictator Speech" and at about the 3 minute mark he says "And so long as men die, liberty will never perish." He's talking about dictators and his speech generally concerns tyranny, but the thought of dictators never dying puts kind of a dump on this idea.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 6:00:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Humans may not be mortal forever. One could then argue that, since humans are immortal, should the human race not be immortal as well?

Which means we should start working on that pesky heat death thing -- that's going to be rather a long-term project.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 7:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not having an average death age of 40 is the TRUE perversion, since man in a state of a nature would rarely live much longer.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:18:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?

Humanity has built those things by destroying natural resources and habitats. Humanity is like a plague that is destroying, and will destroy, everywhere we inhabit. All of our "creations" are absolutely worthless, sorry. Nothing save for humanity cares about art (pathetic compared to the absolute beauty in the natural world) and music. Not to mention that we can't even keep from destroying ourselves, hundreds of millions murdered in wars and genocides in the 20th century (you know, the modern age).

Why is destruction bad? It's that kind of nihilism that annoys me. I shudder to think of all the destruction we reap on nature. If you saw the Rainforest paved over it would piss you off too--I can have a distaste for something without proving that its objectively wrong, although it probably is. You may as well ask why is raping children objectively wrong, even if I know nothing about ethics and can't justify it, the alternative (child rape is not wrong) is despicable to even imagine.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:25:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:18:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?

Humanity has built those things by destroying natural resources and habitats. Humanity is like a plague that is destroying, and will destroy, everywhere we inhabit. All of our "creations" are absolutely worthless, sorry. Nothing save for humanity cares about art (pathetic compared to the absolute beauty in the natural world) and music. Not to mention that we can't even keep from destroying ourselves, hundreds of millions murdered in wars and genocides in the 20th century (you know, the modern age).

So your argument boils down to "what we create is not as good as what we destroy",...which is an opinion.

Why is destruction bad? It's that kind of nihilism that annoys me. I shudder to think of all the destruction we reap on nature. If you saw the Rainforest paved over it would piss you off too--I can have a distaste for something without proving that its objectively wrong, although it probably is. You may as well ask why is raping children objectively wrong, even if I know nothing about ethics and can't justify it, the alternative (child rape is not wrong) is despicable to even imagine.

You're closed minded and you base your dislike of nihilism on emotional prejudices. Child rape does not have to be objectively wrong for people to find it extremely reprehensible, so please don't try to interlink the two and use emotion to support irrational beliefs.

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:25:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:18:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?

Humanity has built those things by destroying natural resources and habitats. Humanity is like a plague that is destroying, and will destroy, everywhere we inhabit. All of our "creations" are absolutely worthless, sorry. Nothing save for humanity cares about art (pathetic compared to the absolute beauty in the natural world) and music. Not to mention that we can't even keep from destroying ourselves, hundreds of millions murdered in wars and genocides in the 20th century (you know, the modern age).

So your argument boils down to "what we create is not as good as what we destroy",...which is an opinion.

Will you stop? Do you not realize how incredibly condescending you sound all the time? You're 15 fvcking years old and will look back and say "wow I was a dumbass" just like everyone else so stop acting as if you're the most intelligent person on the planet. It annoys everyone, or virtually everyone in case you didn't know.

Anyway, that logic is easily turned. Your rebuttal entered around humanities creations outweighing its destruction, so I don't see how your position is any better. Where did I even say that my opinion was an objective fact? The thread was a question asking my opinion and I answered with my opinion.

Why is destruction bad? It's that kind of nihilism that annoys me. I shudder to think of all the destruction we reap on nature. If you saw the Rainforest paved over it would piss you off too--I can have a distaste for something without proving that its objectively wrong, although it probably is. You may as well ask why is raping children objectively wrong, even if I know nothing about ethics and can't justify it, the alternative (child rape is not wrong) is despicable to even imagine.

You're closed minded and you base your dislike of nihilism on emotional prejudices. Child rape does not have to be objectively wrong for people to find it extremely reprehensible, so please don't try to interlink the two and use emotion to support irrational beliefs.

I don't think many people on this site are close minded, least of all me considering I constantly change my opinions on the "Big Issues". Of course I base my distaste for nihilism on emotion, considering that all feelings of morals or justice are emotional. You can construct logical arguments to defend your moral perceptions, but they all begin from an emotional base. Yes or no, is child rape objectively wrong?

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?

I've answered this to you before, ethics regarding humans stem from private property.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:33:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:25:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:18:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?

Humanity has built those things by destroying natural resources and habitats. Humanity is like a plague that is destroying, and will destroy, everywhere we inhabit. All of our "creations" are absolutely worthless, sorry. Nothing save for humanity cares about art (pathetic compared to the absolute beauty in the natural world) and music. Not to mention that we can't even keep from destroying ourselves, hundreds of millions murdered in wars and genocides in the 20th century (you know, the modern age).

So your argument boils down to "what we create is not as good as what we destroy",...which is an opinion.

Will you stop? Do you not realize how incredibly condescending you sound all the time? You're 15 fvcking years old and will look back and say "wow I was a dumbass" just like everyone else so stop acting as if you're the most intelligent person on the planet. It annoys everyone, or virtually everyone in case you didn't know.

Anyway, that logic is easily turned. Your rebuttal entered around humanities creations outweighing its destruction, so I don't see how your position is any better. Where did I even say that my opinion was an objective fact? The thread was a question asking my opinion and I answered with my opinion.

I can usually look back at things I wrote and feel stupid for writing them because they are condescending. I'm told that often, and I try not to be. In this case, I can't fathom what in that sentence was offensive to you. I'm 16 by the way.

Why is destruction bad? It's that kind of nihilism that annoys me. I shudder to think of all the destruction we reap on nature. If you saw the Rainforest paved over it would piss you off too--I can have a distaste for something without proving that its objectively wrong, although it probably is. You may as well ask why is raping children objectively wrong, even if I know nothing about ethics and can't justify it, the alternative (child rape is not wrong) is despicable to even imagine.

You're closed minded and you base your dislike of nihilism on emotional prejudices. Child rape does not have to be objectively wrong for people to find it extremely reprehensible, so please don't try to interlink the two and use emotion to support irrational beliefs.

I don't think many people on this site are close minded, least of all me considering I constantly change my opinions on the "Big Issues". Of course I base my distaste for nihilism on emotion, considering that all feelings of morals or justice are emotional. You can construct logical arguments to defend your moral perceptions, but they all begin from an emotional base. Yes or no, is child rape objectively wrong?

Objectively? no. In my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of people, it's wrong...but that would be subjective.

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?

I've answered this to you before, ethics regarding humans stem from private property.

And why should we respect private property? I don't know why you think that works as an answer. Private property itself is a part of normative ethics, so it has to be based on OTHER ethical principles, which you refuse to reveal or support.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:49:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:42:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:33:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:25:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:18:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:01:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely not. Humanity does nothing but destroy, destroy, destroy. If we manage to leave Earth we will just destroy even more of the Universe.

I don't what words properly describe this, but people do it a lot and it annoys me. There are obviously things humanity has destroyed, but do you not realize or do you not care about things it has created? We've created cities and inventions and satellites...medicine, music, art, biological opportunities, care for other lifeforms. I could go on forever.

That's just half of the problem with your argument...

The other half is, why is destruction inherently wrong. I also assume that you believe in objective morals, to which I ask, where do morals come from?

Humanity has built those things by destroying natural resources and habitats. Humanity is like a plague that is destroying, and will destroy, everywhere we inhabit. All of our "creations" are absolutely worthless, sorry. Nothing save for humanity cares about art (pathetic compared to the absolute beauty in the natural world) and music. Not to mention that we can't even keep from destroying ourselves, hundreds of millions murdered in wars and genocides in the 20th century (you know, the modern age).

So your argument boils down to "what we create is not as good as what we destroy",...which is an opinion.

Will you stop? Do you not realize how incredibly condescending you sound all the time? You're 15 fvcking years old and will look back and say "wow I was a dumbass" just like everyone else so stop acting as if you're the most intelligent person on the planet. It annoys everyone, or virtually everyone in case you didn't know.

Anyway, that logic is easily turned. Your rebuttal entered around humanities creations outweighing its destruction, so I don't see how your position is any better. Where did I even say that my opinion was an objective fact? The thread was a question asking my opinion and I answered with my opinion.

I can usually look back at things I wrote and feel stupid for writing them because they are condescending. I'm told that often, and I try not to be. In this case, I can't fathom what in that sentence was offensive to you. I'm 16 by the way.

Happy birthday.

Why is destruction bad? It's that kind of nihilism that annoys me. I shudder to think of all the destruction we reap on nature. If you saw the Rainforest paved over it would piss you off too--I can have a distaste for something without proving that its objectively wrong, although it probably is. You may as well ask why is raping children objectively wrong, even if I know nothing about ethics and can't justify it, the alternative (child rape is not wrong) is despicable to even imagine.

You're closed minded and you base your dislike of nihilism on emotional prejudices. Child rape does not have to be objectively wrong for people to find it extremely reprehensible, so please don't try to interlink the two and use emotion to support irrational beliefs.

I don't think many people on this site are close minded, least of all me considering I constantly change my opinions on the "Big Issues". Of course I base my distaste for nihilism on emotion, considering that all feelings of morals or justice are emotional. You can construct logical arguments to defend your moral perceptions, but they all begin from an emotional base. Yes or no, is child rape objectively wrong?

Objectively? no. In my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of people, it's wrong...but that would be subjective.

Why should we consider logic objective fact? Or mathematics? Even though the truth that 2 + 2 is 4 is blindingly obvious, why should we recognize it? It's also blindingly obvious that child rape is wrong, so unless you want to affirm absolute nihilism you have to make a case for why morality is different than logic or mathematics

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?

I've answered this to you before, ethics regarding humans stem from private property.

And why should we respect private property? I don't know why you think that works as an answer. Private property itself is a part of normative ethics, so it has to be based on OTHER ethical principles, which you refuse to reveal or support.

I've said this before too, it's because they naturally occur. We all naturally have sovereignty over our bodies. I really can't fathom how you can believe something is morally wrong yet still argue for moral relativism. Surely if you saw some filth raping your little sister you would stop it, but why are you so arrogant to presume that your opinion is more important than that of the rapist? I guess we shouldn't stop any evil from happening then
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry for calling you condescending. Not because it's untrue, but because I am just as bad if not worse than you are :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 8:57:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:49:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

Why should we consider logic objective fact? Or mathematics? Even though the truth that 2 + 2 is 4 is blindingly obvious, why should we recognize it? It's also blindingly obvious that child rape is wrong, so unless you want to affirm absolute nihilism you have to make a case for why morality is different than logic or mathematics

Morality deals with what should/ought to occur in the world, thus being only applicable to free-willed creatures. Logic and mathematics deal with what does occur, and applies to everything in the universe. Using the objectivity of math to support the objectivity of morality simply doesn't make any sense.

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?

I've answered this to you before, ethics regarding humans stem from private property.

And why should we respect private property? I don't know why you think that works as an answer. Private property itself is a part of normative ethics, so it has to be based on OTHER ethical principles, which you refuse to reveal or support.

I've said this before too, it's because they naturally occur. We all naturally have sovereignty over our bodies. I really can't fathom how you can believe something is morally wrong yet still argue for moral relativism. Surely if you saw some filth raping your little sister you would stop it, but why are you so arrogant to presume that your opinion is more important than that of the rapist? I guess we shouldn't stop any evil from happening then

Is/ought fallacy. Having natural control over our bodies does not imply that we should have control over our bodies.

Well, my opinion is not more important than the rapist's. However, society will punish and resent this rapist because we generally disapprove of such behavior. Society may decide what it will and will not punish and will and will not disapprove of - and whatever they choose is neither right nor wrong because morality is subjective. The only reason why rape is wrong is because we as a society feel that it is wrong and thus make laws to protect our interests.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 8:57:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 8:49:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

Why should we consider logic objective fact? Or mathematics? Even though the truth that 2 + 2 is 4 is blindingly obvious, why should we recognize it? It's also blindingly obvious that child rape is wrong, so unless you want to affirm absolute nihilism you have to make a case for why morality is different than logic or mathematics

Morality deals with what should/ought to occur in the world, thus being only applicable to free-willed creatures. Logic and mathematics deal with what does occur, and applies to everything in the universe. Using the objectivity of math to support the objectivity of morality simply doesn't make any sense.

I was unclear, my apologies. Why should I recognize that logic/mathematics are objective facts? I agree that they are, I just believe in another set of objective facts than you do.

You also did not answer my question. Where do morals come from?

I've answered this to you before, ethics regarding humans stem from private property.

And why should we respect private property? I don't know why you think that works as an answer. Private property itself is a part of normative ethics, so it has to be based on OTHER ethical principles, which you refuse to reveal or support.

I've said this before too, it's because they naturally occur. We all naturally have sovereignty over our bodies. I really can't fathom how you can believe something is morally wrong yet still argue for moral relativism. Surely if you saw some filth raping your little sister you would stop it, but why are you so arrogant to presume that your opinion is more important than that of the rapist? I guess we shouldn't stop any evil from happening then

Is/ought fallacy. Having natural control over our bodies does not imply that we should have control over our bodies.

Not really, consider that you affirm the principle every time you argue with someone without using force. I know spinko had told you about argumentation ethics.

Well, my opinion is not more important than the rapist's. However, society will punish and resent this rapist because we generally disapprove of such behavior.

Nazi German society believed it was not acceptable to be a Jew, if you had the choice would you have prevented the holocaust? I assume you would, which makes your opinion superior to that of the Germans, right? So why?

Society may decide what it will and will not punish and will and will not disapprove of - and whatever they choose is neither right nor wrong because morality is subjective. The only reason why rape is wrong is because we as a society feel that it is wrong and thus make laws to protect our interests.

What gives societies the right to set moral values to those who may not agree with them?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 9:15:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 9:05:53 PM, thett3 wrote:

Not really, consider that you affirm the principle every time you argue with someone without using force. I know spinko had told you about argumentation ethics.

I read some criticism of argumentation ethics, and they agree that it is making some unjustified assumptions based on that observation. (http://www.anti-state.com...) Read the part titled "Hoppe conflates use with ownership"

Well, my opinion is not more important than the rapist's. However, society will punish and resent this rapist because we generally disapprove of such behavior.

Nazi German society believed it was not acceptable to be a Jew, if you had the choice would you have prevented the holocaust? I assume you would, which makes your opinion superior to that of the Germans, right? So why?

That does not make my opinion superior to that of Germans. It only means that I have a different opinion and I want to enforce it. It is neither right nor wrong.

Society may decide what it will and will not punish and will and will not disapprove of - and whatever they choose is neither right nor wrong because morality is subjective. The only reason why rape is wrong is because we as a society feel that it is wrong and thus make laws to protect our interests.

What gives societies the right to set moral values to those who may not agree with them?

Exactly, Nothing! Whether or not they do so is neither right nor wrong.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 9:19:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 9:15:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/28/2012 9:05:53 PM, thett3 wrote:

Not really, consider that you affirm the principle every time you argue with someone without using force. I know spinko had told you about argumentation ethics.

I read some criticism of argumentation ethics, and they agree that it is making some unjustified assumptions based on that observation. (http://www.anti-state.com...) Read the part titled "Hoppe conflates use with ownership"

Later, I will.

Well, my opinion is not more important than the rapist's. However, society will punish and resent this rapist because we generally disapprove of such behavior.

Nazi German society believed it was not acceptable to be a Jew, if you had the choice would you have prevented the holocaust? I assume you would, which makes your opinion superior to that of the Germans, right? So why?

That does not make my opinion superior to that of Germans. It only means that I have a different opinion and I want to enforce it. It is neither right nor wrong.

If you want to enforce your opinion than that has to mean you value it over that of another....

Society may decide what it will and will not punish and will and will not disapprove of - and whatever they choose is neither right nor wrong because morality is subjective. The only reason why rape is wrong is because we as a society feel that it is wrong and thus make laws to protect our interests.

What gives societies the right to set moral values to those who may not agree with them?

Exactly, Nothing! Whether or not they do so is neither right nor wrong.

Ok. Please answer this though, why should I recognize that mathematics/logic are objective facts?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 9:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/28/2012 9:19:25 PM, thett3 wrote:

If you want to enforce your opinion than that has to mean you value it over that of another....

Yes, and that is my opinion, which is subjective.

Society may decide what it will and will not punish and will and will not disapprove of - and whatever they choose is neither right nor wrong because morality is subjective. The only reason why rape is wrong is because we as a society feel that it is wrong and thus make laws to protect our interests.

What gives societies the right to set moral values to those who may not agree with them?

Exactly, Nothing! Whether or not they do so is neither right nor wrong.

Ok. Please answer this though, why should I recognize that mathematics/logic are objective facts?

You don't have to. All statements on what someone "should" do, are dependent on an "IF" desire. So "IF" you value truth (which is the case for most of humanity), then you will recognize objective facts. Objective facts do not objectively have to be recognized.
"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
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 9:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike: I would love to argue with you some more, but we're derailing the thread big time and I have homework to do (procrastination ftw!)

Don't take that as a concession, because it isnt :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right