Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@coal
If I saw someone I thought was a dude, and was a girl, I would not be any more attracted to them than anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
If you are referring to an interpretation of a fact, then no empirical evidence is not proof, but a deductive argument is not necessarily sound, and yes - dependent on the claim itself, empirical evidence is a proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um... its also a right that all people have? You shouldn't have to worry about not being able to afford it - its not even that these children are the only people that starve- THE PARENTS STARVE TOO - the people starving IN GENERAL is the problem bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
uhuh - but you already answered the question - you just refuse to discuss the implications - I mean fine - that's your choice and I won't bother you about if you don't wanna talk about 'em, but that's what I'm interested in currently, at least in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In some instances yes- it would be obligatory, but in others no - but yes to be obligated not to do something against well-being (the obvious caveat being if that against well-being creates more well being, such as working out)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
1) Is it morally obligatory to generate the most well-being for the most number of sentient (in this case, self-aware) beings in your model?
I'd say good, not necessarily obligated - though you are obligated to not take away well-being
2) What is your definition of moral good?
Benefiting well-being of sentient beings
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um.... okay? There are several other threads about general morality, here we are specifically asking about divine theory - yes the question is restricting, on purpose, its supposed to get an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um - the dilemma is a question posed to those who accept god - again - it has nothing to do with moral theory in general - it is specifically questioning divine command, that is the purpose of the question. The "Not-mentioning-god" thing isn't a good thing in this respect, because that's what this dilemma is supposed to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's option one bud.
an action good because god commands it,
Do you pay attention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um - no - you've missed the entire point of the dilemma - we are specifically talking about the root of morality that a divine being draws from for his commands - we are not discussing the general application of good and evil, did you miss that? If good supersedes then you've accepted "god command it because it's good", which means the implications I suggested - you didn't even touch those bud, for a refresher:
If the latter is true then good supersedes god, and god's morality is non-unique, open to critique same as any other interpreter - as well - any commands that god makes would inherently have to follow what is established as good, if god were to do things which contradict each other morally and claim both to be moral, then that god is not moral.
Also... what? Tell me then - if you were to restain yourself from killing would that be evil?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Please - point them out - and while your at it - please actually respond to my argument
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The most amount of well being, that's been fairly obvious, its simply not the case that humans are so simple that you can easily say: "yup that person is more or less important than another morally" it also has to do with how much a person suffers, how much a person benefits - it is incredibly nuanced - if you can't understand that then I get why you like Kant so much.
The answer isn't black and white dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What? You do realize that that isn't an argument right? That's an excuse for your god - why should humans that aren't even educated have to factor that in, whenever we have the freedom to have children, it ought to be where everyone can eat? Right? That's the fault of god, not the people that god made.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Please provide any evidence for your claims in regards to slavery, because you haven't linked a single thing - furthermore... yes - it was fundamentally capitalistic - the problem was that people were willing to treat humans as a means to make profit, that is the fundamental problem with slavery, owning human beings. It is a necessarily capitalistic problem, like whether land ought to be ownable. Its as like if I were to say that 2 + 2 is fundamentally a science problem because of its relevance to valence electrons and not math, yes, an extrapolated problem with slavery was the legal enforcement, but the principle itself is capitalistic.
"By 1880, Standard Oil owned or controlled 90 percent of the U.S. oil refining business, making it the first great industrial monopoly in the world. But in achieving this position, Standard violated its Ohio charter, which prohibited the company from doing business outside the state. Rockefeller and his associates decided to move Standard Oil from Cleveland to New York City and to form a new type of business organization called a "trust.""
Mmhm, excuse me if I don't exactly accept your implied definition of monopoly - Furthermore, if you want an example - take lightbulbs. Um.... of you pay workers more. you keep less from sales, the same goes for implementing safety protocols and such - that's fairly simple. Um..... those are the things that companies use to fine-tune their profits, but the fact of the matter is that increase in profit is using the labour of the worker to do things that aren't paying the worker, perhaps that something that should or should not be done, the fact is that it happens, and it doesn't just happen to people who don't need the extra money, that kind of thing is what perpetuates the minimum wage.
Fix up what junkers? What are you talking about? But if I'm able to interpret what you mean, fixing cars and selling them does have a benefit to society... people will have cars to drive for transportation. And oh, we should eliminate the minimum wage.. why? You do realize that before it was implemented that was how people were taken advantage off, kept in literal serfdom? Because that's what happened prior to that bud. Having workers at all matters more than paying them more money, its absurd to argue either wise - which would you rather have - no workers or workers paid more? The answer is [retty simple to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No - no it isn't - you are still assuming that 1 person is worth ess than 5 people, and I never claimed that. Not once. I said that you ought to do the greatest moral good, I also said that it of the greatest benefit to well-being. That still doesn't necessarily mean that 1 person dying is less harm than 5 people. You just assumed that to be the case - but have you ever though of the amount of pain one goes through? or the level of suffering inflicted? Or the difference of letting suffering and causing suffering? This question is nonsensical, and in order for it to be construed the way you like, you need to assume so many things, its an absurd and extremely unlikely hypothetical with no basis in actual moral reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why do kids still die? Because obviously the parents aren't good enough - cause sometimes parents can't do anything - like when their starving - tell me - how exactly does allowing millions to starve do anything to "keep their freewill" it's quite literally not their fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No - because you're also assuming these people die - but your also assuming that 5 people suffering is as bad as one person dying and his sovereignty being abused - you are still assuming quite a few things.
Created:
Posted in:
1} Is there an answer to everything?....1a} If so, what is that answer?
In what regard? I wasn't aware that everything was a question.
2} Is there possibility for a unified theory of everything?
If I'm interpreting this correctly, I'm not quite convinced by its assertions it makes: its simply been demonstrated too many times that a purely mathematical hypothetical proof is not as valid as raw empirical evidence.
3} Is our occupied space Universe finite?
Do you mean the Universe that we find ourselves in? I would suppose that yes it is. The universe that is, not space in general.
4} If #3 is yes, then what exists outside of the finite, occupied space Universe?
Other universes
5} If the Universe is finite, is it a perpetual motion mechanism, or operating system?I
I suppose it would be closer to a perpetual motion mechanism - though not perpetual - it is pretty close to it.
6} If we live in a finite Universe, does it have an associated shape or set of shapes?
I'm not sure - I'd have to do more research
7} Can we associate the word soul, with all biologic creatures, or only humans?
No biological creatures, I don't think souls are a thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
The state says 18 - I say 21`- because the brain is mostly developed and won't be permanently harmed by a lot of stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Appeal to natural fallacy- why would intervening in unnecessary harm interfere with free will? That would be like saying our inability to fly with wings is interfering with our free-will. It's ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Um.. yes it is - its simply a right you get when you turn the age of majority... ya know, like the right to vote? That's when society's deemed you experienced enough to make those kinds of decisions regarding things that aren't always harmful - though I think morally that age should be 21.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
But.. that's not what I said - I said that if that parent KNEW that the kid would be harmed, then that parent would stop it. Period. This has nothing to do with "controlling every motion", because that's not what I said. Your constructing a response that isn't actually responding to my argument proper.
Also... do you believe that heaven is all good? If you do, do you then believe that you have free will in heaven? Because according to the bible, the answer is yes in both case - and heaven is seen as the BEST PLACE - so obviously you can be all good, meaning no evil happens, and still have free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
C - you're assuming a lot bud - 1 - that there are no other people with organs , 2 - that the organs in the sleepen' dude are actually matching with the people (given that there are 5 it's practically impossible for all 5 of them to match), etc, etc - you be assuming lots with this question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
First of all - children can't give informed consent, don't give me that shit bud - its an inherent quality that grows as the individual experiences such and such - furthermore, sadism is something where someone develops pleasure from pain, for every drop of pain there is pleasure - pedophilia does not relate there bud - pedophilia mentally and physically harms individuals regardless of experience, the same is not true of every principle bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Which ever leads to the greatest good - and well-being literally has to be the principle, you accept that human well-being matters, I know that for a fact. All humans do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
That's a drastically different concept - what I'm saying is that if your parents COULD prevent a bad thing from happening, then they DO. Yes, sometimes they allow hardship that allows growth (though it is debatable if its always a good thing), but "responsibility" has nothing to do with letting a toddler run into the street.
Created:
Posted in:
The dilemma poses a simple question:
- Is an action good because god commands it, or is does god command it because it's good
If the latter is true then good supersedes god, and god's morality is non-unique, open to critique same as any other interpreter - as well - any commands that god makes would inherently have to follow what is established as good, if god were to do things which contradict each other morally and claim both to be moral, then that god is not moral.
If the former is true then morality is relative and arbitrary, completely subject to the view of god at the time, morality is nothing more than obedience, and not actually effective in solving any moral problems, this would put into question the inherent authority often ascribed to Abrahamic gods, and would not make their actions "good" effectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Badness, in general, is just harm that is not balanced by good - for example - working out creates physical stress on your body, but the results that are more beneficial than the harm done, therefore that thing is "good". I thought that was pretty clear.
How do you know that any moral rule will lead you to "good"? In this case evidence, we know that rape will harm an individual more than it will help a person, we know that in general, doing something harmful to someone against their consent is "bad", because the instances where it is not against their consent, its typically because of an exception - for example - sadist sex.
Who defines what's bad? What harms people the most... so evidence, typically empirical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Natural rights don't exist, nothing in morality naturally exists, its a human construct - however as humans you do implicitly accept said construct, so pragmatically they are natural, just not in the sense that most would consider. It goes like this:
P1: You desire to not have value taken from your well-being
P2: Other's desire to not have value taken from their well-being
CON: Humans desire to not have value taken from their well-being
P1: Human well-being has value
P2: Harm detracts value from human well-being
P3: We ought not detract value from human well-being
CON: Therefore you ought not harm human well-being
P1: IF you accept that a human's well being has value, THEN you ought not to harm humans
P2: All humans accept human's well being has value
CON: Therefore you ought not to harm humans
Primary axioms you accept:
Human well-being has value
You don't want to detract from that value
Harming human well-being detracts from that value
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well... if the only problem was dying of dehydration, but he'd die via blood loss before that ever happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Consent being a right is fairly easy to justify, I would define a right as an automatic quality or protection granted to an individual to protect them from pain, "badness" - so from that framework, consent is quite obviously a right - fundamentally consent is a gate, whenever something occurs or is proposed that the individual does like that gate is closed, when something occurs or is proposed that the individual does, the gate is opened.
Where this becomes important is matters of moral ambiguity, for example, sadistic sex. Typically humans recognize pain as something to be avoided; however, certain people derive pleasure from the practice of being in pain physically, if one were to assume that sadism is bad in all instances then you would be denying people pleasure unnecessarily - therefore "consent", generally, is to provide nuance and account for individuality.
Consent is a moral principle in the same way cost-benefit analysis are.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact that our primary claim: the bible, has no official authors (no one actually signed their writing), nor do we have good dates. The fact that the claim is so absent of evidence is at least an indicator, but the fact that basic heart restarting wasn't even possible until hundreds of years later is pretty good evidence against his alleged ressurection.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Whatever you say bud.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
We've already discussed the lack of valid numbers their bud - I do recognize that source. Furthermore - that was the case, but after Trump's policies we saw a re-engagement in rhetoric regarding abstinence-only sex education:
"The Trump administration continues to shift the focus towards abstinence-only education, revamping the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and increasing federal funding for sexual risk avoidance programs. Despite the large body of evidence suggesting that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at delaying sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners of teens, many states continue to seek funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and mandate an emphasis on abstinence when sex education is taught in school. There will likely be continued debate about the effectiveness of these programs and ongoing attention to the level of federal investment in sex education programs that prioritize abstinence-only approaches over those that are more comprehensive and based on medical information."
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
- Shown Here:
- Introduced in Senate (01/24/2013)
Hyde Amendment Codification Act - Prohibits the expenditure for any abortion of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law .Prohibits the use of federal funds for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, and plans receiving federal funds must keep them segregated from any funds for abortion services.)Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.
I oppose this amendment on two fronts:
- Taxes is an involuntary service that citizens perform via social contract, what the government does with that money is dictated by what the law dictates, and furthermore what the elected officials the citizens voted for choose. Roe v. Wade already ruled that abortion is legal, and this code would inhibit abortion clinics from providing a legal service.
- To deny healthcare intuitionally is to reignite discrimination systematically, specifically against women's body sovereignty, the same logic used here was used previously to deny women a right to divorce their husband (but you're going to harm your husband), or to work as pilots (periods make them unstable, they'll harm people), and so on and so forth.
Not to even mention how this assumes that one ought to avoid abortion, which I don't agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No - that would be stupid - do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"? No. No, they don't. Please quit the theodicy.
Created:
Posted in:
A while back I did an AMA, this was back when I had first started into the forum section, but now that I've been here for a while, and there are new usres here -I want to give people a new opportunity to question me
For ease of access - a list of my labels and positions:
- Progressivism
- Free-Utilities
- Free-Healthcare
- Free-Education
- Non-complex immigration
- Pro-Choice
- Increasing Age-of-Majority
- Anti-Mandatory Draft
- Police Abolishment
- De-Militarization of Martial departments
- Against Flat Tax - Tax leans Rich
- Pro-LGBTQIA
- Comprehensive Education including LGBTQIA topics
- Gender-Affirming Healthcare
- Allowing adoption services to all given other prerequisites are met
- Penalty for tangible discrimination against
- Standardizing Official documentation to include LGBTQIA identities
- Atheist
- Anti-Theist
- Separation of Church and State
- Freedom to and from Religion
- Taxing the Church
- Abolishing Religious exemptions that harm individuals
- Naturalist
- The natural world is all there is
- Supernatural is impossible
- souls don't exist
- The mind is an emergent property of the brain
- Moral Subjectivist
- Objective moral truths are impossible
- Sentientism
- Soft-Utilitarianism
- Personal Identities
- Pansexual - Am attracted to people regardless of gender, i.e, no physiological traits I find particularly attractive over another
- Cis-gendered - I identify as the gender I was assigned at birth
- High Schooler auditing several college classes
And that's all I can think of right now - ask away
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
Axiomatically - by definition an all-loving god wants what's best for the beings they love, any "evil" that occurs would automatically be not the best thing for said beings, therefore if they had enough power to prevent any evil, they would prevent it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I was thinkin' on taking that debate, have any other topics you wanted to debate? I might be interested - I don't usually dabble in law, but it might be interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
you cannot be 100% of almost anything
You did notice the qualifier right? Because you seem to have a problem with qualifiers, its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things - please - go ahead and prove 100% that the reality we perceive is real.
Also do you agree with the rest of my argument? Because your non-interaction would suggest that.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Then I suppose you would think that that Christian isn't a Christian if they had put down the candle? Again - the mere fact that you don't adhere to a proposition does not mean that you don't accept it. That's not situational ethics, that is literally every single human being. By that definition every single human being operates on situational ethics, in that case, your criticism is non-unique and you provide no practical solution to it.
You seem to think that pragmatics and ethics are separate, they are not - if you cannot actually *do* a thing, then any ethical value is literally useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof.
Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Okay let's put you in a scenario - you're starving - you think that stealing is generally bad - but you do so in order to survive, does that mean that person isn't against stealing? No - it means that person acted in desperation - it isn't "if it's not convenient" you have entirely missed the words "HAVE TOO" in the qualifier their bud. Yes it is a moral view that says you shouldn't do it all, but just as all moral views make extremely clear IF ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT THEN YOU DO YOUR BEST.
For example - would the fact that a Christian lied once make them not a Christian? Would the fact that a Christian sinned at all somehow make them not a Christian? No....because its a FRAMEWORK and even if you don't apply to it at all, the fact that you accept it to be the correct moral framework means you accept it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Now I know for a fact you aren't paying attention - gender identity and gender dysphoria ARE NOT THE SAME THING gender dysphoria develops as a result of an extreme un-comfortability with their body not matching their mind. By the way, where are those studies you mentioned? You said they suggested something, so where are they? Also please link the source for your comparison - but before you even do let me give you a little lecture about chemistry. Something can have a similar chemical structure to another molecule, take phytoestrogens, and have literally no relation to estrogen itself - yes they have a similar chemical makeup - but the stuff its made out of are entirely different.
You legitimately sound like one of those people who think soy lowers your testosterone....
Furthermore... you've dropped literally 90% of my points- if you wanted to convince me you were a serious interlocutor you have failed miserably.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Um.... yes - slavery was fundamentally a capitalistic venture, it was a way to have labour for free drastically increasing profit margins. It has everything to do with that. And trading stock helps facilitate new goods and products, oh look how the competition helps increase the quality of goods... not - a majority of any profits derived from stock trading is taken as personal profit, the meandering stuff used in actual development might as well be the light bulb industry (constantly decreasing in quality)
Did... you seriously just ask that question? "what industries become monopolies in capitalism?" I'm not designing that one with a response - well - not a sentence response - just a name: Rockafeller. Because worker unions want better working conditions, more pay, etc - all of which take from the bottom line of profit, something pure capitalism is against. Does a worker who makes, grows, whatever, some good get all of the pay for the full worth of that thing? I.e - does a McDonald employee get paid for every burger they make? Well no - because its not really a labour system - fundamentally speaking - you aren't paying workers what they make... literally.
How do you gauge one's "earnings" of wealth? Um... how much did that person tangibly contribute to society? Like, actually contribute?
Funny that argument there - did you know that was the exact same argument people used against there being a minimum wage? Do you know what the easy solution there is bud? Companies literally have to pay 15 dollars at a minimum, that just means rising the amount they pay - do you think that thousands of companies are just going to be "okay then, if you won't work for 7:50, then you won't work at all!" of course freaken' not - that would be incredibly stupid. The problem with your argument is that its purely theoretical...ya know how i know that? Because we've seen it FAIL BEFORE.
Created: