Total posts: 3,457
-->
@SirAnonymous
Why does Jesus know? Why does Jesus know god at all? He claims to know god, but we should interest Jesus's knowledge just as the humans, until otherwise is demonstrated. He is nothing but a prophet, and it still hits on the patriarchy point from before, that's all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Practically yes, staking a claim in someone's labor both implies you have no authority to do it, and that you have no justification to do it, whereas taxation has both of those things. And I specifically disputed that taking someone's labor and taking the products from that labor is different, not what you were asking of.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
According to the bible, God has no gender the authors of the bible assumed god was a male due to patriarchy, we actually have no idea whether god is a male or female, therefore as in their characteristics are what the bible also defines as motherly, i think she is the closest we can get to god's preferred pronoun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
And the literal products of someone's labor is completely different from one's actual labor
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well - also - the justifications are completely different, and not to mention you have an implicit societal duty as per a social contract to contribute to the country's funds as long as it does not abuse your rights, whereas slavery is necessarily violating your rights
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Of course, thank you for engaging me, it helps me flesh out specific facets, as well as improve my reasoning. Sharpening my argument if you would, as well as my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well, as you said, it's an assumption and a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
While the results can be varied, I believe it is very possible to measure how much something hurts or benefits someone objectively, so it definitely leans much more towards the latter option; however, I am aware that things can be misinterpreted, I am aware that studies can be flawes, etc, etc, so I would not say they are objective, just as close as I believe a standard to be.
And no apologies necessary, if anything I was being needlessly aggressive, I basically challenged half the site to a gauntlet when I made a progressive, moral objectivism ama, plus the would your god murder me one. So, my bad.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
She has no moral authority, therefore she commanding murder similar to a mob boss
Created:
-->
@Vader
And what of the times he commands death?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Who is your god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I did, principally because I don't think you can have a moral system that isn't based on a mind, essentially that there is some kind of perception where you have to get your morality from, and I get mine from the human perception of pleasure and suffering, of well being and harm, because I believe that to be one of if not the most objective standard that can be used by humans. Scroll up a bit and I do actually explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
What is the objective order? I do not believe any order to be objective, it is definitionally impossible. Before I would listen to the supposed objective order, I would have to have proof that the order was objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."
Morality - "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."
Therefore Subjective Morality are principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour which are dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
While technically the standard I'm using is objective to humans, in order for that paradigm to exist human minds would have to perceive it, and it is therefore subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
No idea and I honestly don't care, I am using the dictionary definitions and extrapolating from there, while a philosophic paper would also give me a basis for it, why can't the dictionary also be a basis?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Taxation is morally equivalent to forced labor.Therefore taxation is morally equivalent to slavery
This is a conditional statement, IF taxation is morally equivalent to forced labor, then taxation is morally equivalent to slavery
First problem being - you are assuming the only problem with slavery is forced labor. The deep wealth inherent of psychological, physical, sexual, and romantic harm done to a slave can not be matched by taxes, as it does not inherently inflict this upon the people it enable thems over
Second problem: Taxation isn't morally equivalent to forced labor - you only pay taxes whenever you buy something or receive income - therefore the mandatory tax is not at all forced, while you could argue that you need to work and such to survive, therefore it is forced, all that does is illustrate that the differences between the labor of paying extra money is vastly different from being forced to work and being dehumanized as you did so.
Essentially this is a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
That is incorrect.
If you implying that's what moral subjectivism is, you are also wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
But why is human harm or benefit the standard? Why should it apply to everyone? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're applying this standard to everyone everywhere every time. It seems to me that you're taking a subjective standard and making it essentially objective.
That should be obvious by now, because everyone is influenced, positively and negatively by well-being, welfare, pleasure, whichever you want to call it - everyone has it and therefore everyone ought to have some goal to preserve their own at least, and thereby others. It is applied to everyone, but that does not make it objective at all, no morality is objective.
The one other issue I have is that there doesn't seem to be any moral dimension here. Yes, it's logical for people to do what benefits them. But why is human benefit good?
It is very connected to the moral realm - it is the standard by which I measure morality - therefore it is very morally connected. If your morality is not based on a logical standard, then that morality is not logical, it is not valid. Why should I follow that morality?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
So god has never commanded death? I suppose you've never read the old testament
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
First of all - if there is a massive uncounted homosexual population then the abuse rates would not scale to heterosexual rates like you think it does, Second of all - they are only looking at a literal single study, that is again: biased, un-comprehensive, etc
What that changes is why people are abusive. This study implies that people are just naturally more abusive because they are gay, whenever that does not seem to be the case, gay people are abused more than heterosexual people, and therefore become abusers themselves more often. That doesn't mean that its their fault for being gay. you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not objectively if we weren't humans, but by virtue of being humans, we have a natural rights of sorts
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nothing a god commands arbitrarily is justified -
1. You would have to demonstrate that a god would have a moral authority independent from his mind
2. That god is actually using that moral authority whenever he commands to kill
Furthermore, you seem to be confused, the laws of the time were all either influenced or commanded by god
Finally because god is innocent of having the moral authority to order anything until he is proven guilty of having moral authority, anything she then orders would not be executed, even if they were going off the laws, that isn't what I asked. I asked, if your god told me to murder me, would you? It seems people are missing the point of such a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
First of all - because the classical definition of god has her as an agent, and science isn't an agent nor did can science make decisions or actions.
Second of all - because that would again be defining god into existence
Third - science is an over-arching concept - people simply get it wrong - and we correct our information as we learn more
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Define what you mean specficially. I do not believe that morals can be justified by anything other than subjective values (i.e: things contingent on a mind), therefore I am a moral subjectivist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a lot of things should be moved up to 21, driving, minimum for joining the military, age of consent, all of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a lot of things should be moved up to 21, driving, minimum for joining the military, age of consent, all of that.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Weird people Idk, I had a dm debate a little bit ago
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
No... that's just the ontological argument restated.... it's still defining god into existence
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Sure she bloody does! And I'm the king of f*cking America! Wooh wooh look at me I can say whatever the f*ck I want without retribution! I'm right I'm right! No.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Thanks um, mate, keep on with that attitude and you'll make a great sport of life. Just keep on.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
That's not the point - also incorrect - don't care enough currently to explain why, so you should really just dismiss this post, as I'm presenting no evidence to support my claims.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Huh, that's interesting, I'll look into it. Right now I have a heap of things to do, and such, I have made a to-do list
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think its kinda funny, its your god, you deal with him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are ignoring the cavieat, if there's any harm inherently then I exclude it, besides those, they are all equal.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Left is vague agreed, and but I don't see the second part, and agree to disagree on that last part. To sematic for me to argue right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as there is nothing inherently harmful of that culture, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well aren't you aggressive, all you had to do was clarify, I take back the ad hominem thing, now how about actually addressing my point?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'll be here then, I'll try to address all of your stuff sometime tonight
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where did you get tribal? Is that just thrown in to make it seem worse? Ad hominem at best. And it's not, simple saying you can have two cultures isn't that hard. You can be American and African America, you can be American and Mexican (Cuture) there is no need to get rid of it or appropriate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Than the progressivism I'm talking about isn't a political ideology, because I'm referring to the philosophy and applying it to politics, as far as I was aware that's how all political ideologies work, where is your authority to claim what is and isn't a political ideology, one of the words in it is literally ideology.
I'm sorry I'm simply not in the mood to respond today, I'll create a more in-depth rebuttal a little later :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Like - see here:
That is how America was started and how it thrives, please demonstrate why its bad please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What would be the best general progressive policy that creates jobs in the private sector, especially for unskilled/inexperienced labor?
You are giving me more credit than you should, but if I'd try to answer? Hmm....
Progressism isn't necessarily against all of the current laws or policies, so I'm not sure if it would actually affect this as it is currently, If I'm wrong please do let me know, but as far as I'm aware only the discriminatory laws will have to go which won't actively change all that much there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TXHG
What economic system would you like to see and why?
Hmm.... probably a hybrid of our current system with some socialist values, not necessarily systems: such as giving the free market complete control, making profit less of a priority, etc..
Now, again, as I have pointed out in my other topic, I am very inexperienced when it comes to economics, so I will definitely have to look into the plausibility of such an economic structure in my studies. This could be completely wrong and I'm sorry if it is.
What are the key components of it?
I am not knowledgeable enough of the subject to give you a good or accurate response, I'm sorry.
If a restrained form of capitalism, how do you envisage stopping economic inequality from running rampant again when the very rich will still exist in some form and be able to exert disproportionate power (including on future laws/taxation)?
Hmm, most likely yes to the future question, as for the last part. You would probably have to see a fundamental change in how we fund cities, schools, and the like. In order to ensure economic equality - there are more than just economic principals there. Again I'm sorry if this isn't a satisfying response, I'm not very studies in economics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do itMore like "I can do it, but others don't know that I do it. Thus, they don't know that they're justified in doing it to me, so there are no negative effects for me."
Again - if you are claiming that this is due to the fact that they are harming another person they are necessarily interacting with others but is also not logically justified as I have explained countless times, unless you claim there to be a god, all systems have this problem. Because of course there is no negative if absolutely no one knows you do it (Except for the necessary psychological damage.)
Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc...It doesn't negate the physical harms. It turns them into a positive because the masochist enjoys physical harms.
Just because they enjoy the harm, does not mean it is not negative. Just because you enjoy bleeding out, doesn't mean bleeding out magically isn't harmful. It is still harmful. This is fallacious.
Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need.The tyrant in this case enjoys it. No need is required.
Again, enjoying something isn't grounds for dismissing it, as I have previously explained.
you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negativeExcept that they can't do it to me, so there's no negative.
And like I explained in the text you didn't quote, this is unrealistic, not to mention if they have all of the power that is realistic they can simply harm whatever you are working towards, which is still psychological harm.
suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen.Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways.There are people more powerful than Kim Jong Un, but he gets away with harming others without any harm coming to him. It is a realistic scenario, although it only applies to a few people.
And his cause is still harmed, as you simply ignore in this point, assuming that harming the person directly is the only way to harm someone is naive. And I don't believe you hold that position.
it is literally still logically unjustified.The logic doesn't matter to the tyrant in this scenario. They enjoy harming others, and it brings no harm to themselves.
Woah Woah, maybe not to the tyrant, but it is still unjustified for the tyrant to be morally free of responsibility. As I explained in my paragraph above specifically.
Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm.You seem to be missing the point of the hypothetical. Such situations might be unlikely, and the specific examples I bring up might not work. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not you system would work in such a scenario.
Even if you are correct, it does not work in these very narrow and unlikely scenarios where most if not all positions would not work, you aren't correct. Also, you quote me rebutting you, but you do not actually rebut the case, just reference what I said above that.
They are still wrong to believe it.But they don't care that they're wrong. Your argument here only holds for rational people who are interested in their own benefit. However, there are plenty of irrational people out there.
Incorrect, it holds true to anyone who cares about themselves, other people, or pleasure in general. Therefore if they cared about themselves they are just being wrong. That isn't something you can stop people from being.
Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything.Not quite. It is true that there are people who will violate any moral system. However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations. Other systems don't have that particular problem. For instance, in most systems of objective morality, immoral actions are immoral no matter what. In certain forms of nihilism, nothing is morally good or morally bad.
I've already talked about this paragraph in particular, but to the objective good thing. I do not believe it possible for Objective morality to exist. Therefore that example is wrong. Nihilism would also be okay with them just dying which statistically isn't true of a nihilist. All this ties to obligation is pleasure, simple logic extrapolations get you from there.
Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die.That's only an issue if everyone cares about dying. Take a suicide bomber for instance. The bomber actually wants to die. There are no negatives for him when he carries out the bombing.
Death literally robs all pleasure from the person, therefore it is inherently negative. (Now some cases may exclude this possibility, but then they would be the moral thing to do, and not at all what you are talking about)
Already addressed the last point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It seems you have the same problem that is just repeated, or at least as I interpret it:
If someone does not care about net positive, then it doesn't give people obligations
It honestly doesn't matter if they care about it or not, an moral obligation is based on an ought. Not what people believe. If your response is then to say that it is subjective and not objective and therefore what authority do you have then, is also not a valid response, as the ought itself is the logical condition. This is true of all moral systems. You are human and you have a basis on which you are harmed or hurt, one should do what maximizes that as a factor of biological truth as well as what is most philosophically true. It's kind of like objecting to a syllogism because there are people who would misinterpret that syllogism, it does not logically follow.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'm glad, I was just curious on the philosophic principal.
Created: