Philosophical Vegan Forum

The6thMessenger wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Still that depends.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Person A is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person A loves chocolate, so no biggie, the gun is unnecessary.
Person B is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person B is allergic to chocolate and will die, and doesn't want to die, this is a problem.

Whether things is a problem or bad or otherwise the opposite, is still based on our opinion. That's why it's subjective, it's only such because WE decide that it is. It is "bad" because we see it as disadvantageous for us or results in an otherwise undesirable effect, but still that is only our opinion -- man.

Who is "we"?

miniboes wrote:

The6thMessenger wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Still that depends.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Person A is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person A loves chocolate, so no biggie, the gun is unnecessary.
Person B is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person B is allergic to chocolate and will die, and doesn't want to die, this is a problem.

Whether things is a problem or bad or otherwise the opposite, is still based on our opinion. That's why it's subjective, it's only such because WE decide that it is. It is "bad" because we see it as disadvantageous for us or results in an otherwise undesirable effect, but still that is only our opinion -- man.

Who is "we"?

We, as in the societies, as humans. Convened to agree to what is and is not bad or good. We as our society thinks that ISIS is bad by feeding a chocolate to a chocolate-allergic person and was about to die, but just as well ISIS think that it's good because it's sending another Infidel to Allah, then to hell.

We as in us humans, as units of societies whether as small as partnerships or families, or societies as large as a country, or people sharing the largely-the-same idea of a certain religion.

The cosmos has no description of what is good or bad, we judge what is good or bad based on OUR understanding of what is advantageous or disadvantageous for us. That is still hinged upon our biases and opinions, that can change between people, depending on certain factors.

The6thMessenger wrote: We, as in the societies, as humans. Convened to agree to what is and is not bad or good. We as our society thinks that ISIS is bad by feeding a chocolate to a chocolate-allergic person and was about to die, but just as well ISIS think that it's good because it's sending another Infidel to Allah, then to hell.

We as in us humans, as units of societies whether as small as partnerships or families, or societies as large as a country, or people sharing the largely-the-same idea of a certain religion.

The cosmos has no description of what is good or bad, we judge what is good or bad based on OUR understanding of what is advantageous or disadvantageous for us. That is still hinged upon our biases and opinions, that can change between people, depending on certain factors.

Can you explain how this can be a useful way of determining right and wrong at all?

miniboes wrote:

The6thMessenger wrote: We, as in the societies, as humans. Convened to agree to what is and is not bad or good. We as our society thinks that ISIS is bad by feeding a chocolate to a chocolate-allergic person and was about to die, but just as well ISIS think that it's good because it's sending another Infidel to Allah, then to hell.

We as in us humans, as units of societies whether as small as partnerships or families, or societies as large as a country, or people sharing the largely-the-same idea of a certain religion.

The cosmos has no description of what is good or bad, we judge what is good or bad based on OUR understanding of what is advantageous or disadvantageous for us. That is still hinged upon our biases and opinions, that can change between people, depending on certain factors.

Can you explain how this can be a useful way of determining right and wrong at all?

It doesn't, explains the origin of how we determine what is right and wrong, and that is morality. Admittedly, Morality can take a horrible form, that what is wrong to what we have to day, is right to what it was or what it might be in the future, but that is what it is. It's still morality.

Morality =/= Ethics

Ethics however, i think it's the field of philosophy that discusses the Ideal shape of Morality, prescription of how morality should take shape, but in itself does not dictates what morality is, simply what is good or bad as we can ideally conceptualize it, which is bound to be modified by biases and other factors.

Putting Evolution into play can understand the effects of altruism as well. In social animals, taking care of one another is advantageous, and will prolong the specie's lifespan and prevent extinction, unlike social animals without altruism by comparison. How we figure out what is right and wrong, depends on how we learn due to many trials and errors, those that results in good consequences are retained and even reinforced, while those that didn't were cast away as "bad". Though still it's based on our opinions due to how it affects us primarily, that is how we know what is "right" and "wrong", by trial and error.

So if I understand correctly, you think ethics determines what should be and morality is what people think should be?

I'm not sure about those definitions, but I am willing to go with them. What kind of ethics do you subscribe to, then? I assume you do not agree with consequentialism?

miniboes wrote:So if I understand correctly, you think ethics determines what should be and morality is what people think should be?

I'm not sure about those definitions, but I am willing to go with them. What kind of ethics do you subscribe to, then? I assume you do not agree with consequentialism?

Kind of, "Ethics is how right or wrong should be" or "Ethics is how Morality should be" is how i would put it, while "Morality is the process of distinguishing right or wrong." The thing is that whether a consequence is good or bad is still ultimately determined by us, with our biases forming as opinions. What is "good consequence" or "Bad consequence" is still based on our opinions.

For an ISIS trooper, killing the unbelievers are "Good consequences" because of muslim reasons. To us, it's "Bad Consequence" because of our own reasons that does not agree with the former observer.

Because of this differences of what is "Good" or "Bad" even in how we see consequences still pushes morality as Subjective.

So i have to say, no i don't subscribe to consequentialism, because for it to work requires to have a solid distinction of what is good or bad already to judge what is good or bad. But if you already have the idea of what is good or bad to judge a consequence as good or bad, then it's a needless step, consequentialism is a needless step.

Weird how the incoherent pink one is replying to me and thinks we're having a conversation when I explicitly said my post was not for him/her.

knot wrote: I don't know when a society can no longer be called Islamic, but given a large enough time frame wouldnt we expect the most antisocial aspects of fundamentalist Islam to be phased out (due to game theory)?

Whether they would be phased out or not has no bearing on the morality.

Slavery is perfectly functional, as long as the slaves are oppressed enough not to cause trouble in society. And yet, it's still wrong.

The game theory at hand is the notion that "I won't kill you if you don't kill me", we are trading mutual protection from each other. If a particular class doesn't have sufficient power to create that threat, then the protection on offer is of no value. E.g. children, in the past women, non-human animals. It all has to do with being in a position of negotiating power.

knot wrote: Anyway my point was just that, yes, of course people's moral standpoints are different, but that doesn't automatically mean they're all equally right/wrong

Right, some people are just ignorant and incorrect. Whether failing to understand science, or philosophical matters; there are facts in the world, and people can understand them, or not.
People who can not grasp logic just can't engage in these kinds of discussions.

And yet, the most ignorant people think they're the most qualified to do so, and are usually the ones running around preaching moral subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect
"If you're incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.… [T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."

It's like a five year old who has just developed a theory of mind, and grasped the notion that different people have different thoughts, but has failed to understand the concept that some people's thoughts are incorrect.

The trouble is that it creates the illusion of open mindedness, when indeed being precisely the opposite. By saying that everybody is right/wrong in the same degree, one denies the possibility of truth or knowledge itself, which is the most closed minded and arrogant position possible.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Weird how the incoherent pink one is replying to me and thinks we're having a conversation when I explicitly said my post was not for him/her.

But that doesn't mean i can't respond to it. Which i did.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The trouble is that it creates the illusion of open mindedness, when indeed being precisely the opposite. By saying that everybody is right/wrong in the same degree, one denies the possibility of truth or knowledge itself, which is the most closed minded and arrogant position possible.

So, you're saying that Moral Subjectivist are saying everybody is right/wrong at the same degree? That they are saying that: "anyone's opinion is just as good?"?

The6thMessenger wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:Weird how the incoherent pink one is replying to me and thinks we're having a conversation when I explicitly said my post was not for him/her.

But that doesn't mean i can't respond to it. Which i did.

I don't want to be needlessly mean, but let me try to be clear:
You're tolerated, because so far you've been mostly 'nice' and you haven't done anything annoying enough to enforce the rules on you. You're also typing quite a lot of content (this is good, we like content), and you may be a good teething ring, so I can see the value in others trying to argue with you when they may not have as much experience with these topics. Even arguing with a wall can be useful to gain some experience.

I'm offering advice from the sidelines for those who are engaging you; not exactly for the purposes of this conversation, so much as just for overall consistency and future use. These are people capable of understanding my arguments, and open minded enough to consider them, so my posts have value in that capacity.
They have no value to you if you're not open minded. Ignore them, you won't understand them anyway.

When you assert your conclusion and refuse to answer logical and empirical challenges with broad assertions about how everybody's logic is equally right, it makes it impossible to have a real conversation with you since you have rejected the very basis of discourse off the bat.

Read the forum rules: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... p=224#p224

From what I've seen, it appears you're too arrogant and closed minded to consider the notion that there may be coherent truth worth understanding that you simply don't as of yet grasp, and as far as your mindset is currently, that's an irreconcilable problem if you're not open to correcting it.

Some people are wrong. You need to deal with that fact before you can have a conversation about who is right.

Maybe I'm wrong about your degree of confidence and arrogance, and I hope I am, but this is probably just something you have to grow out of. When you learn more some day (and I hope you do), you'll be embarrassed by how ignorant you were today.
Maybe you'll come back then, and we can have a real conversation -- one based on logic, and the understanding that not everybody is equally right, not all logic is equally valid, and not all premises are true.

Until that day, do not try to bait people into replying to you again by addressing them with poorly conceived straw man arguments when they have made it explicitly clear they do not wish to converse with you. That's just trolling. If you make a habit of it, you may find the forum rules upheld and the implicit exception granted to you for being nicely stupid revoked.

Miniboes is being nice, you should focus on conversing with him, and the others here.

If you insist on having that conversation with those who aren't as charitable or patient, you will be held to the same standards as any other troll no matter how nice or polite you're being. That means answering every question posed to you on pain of banning and not repeating the same failed arguments endlessly. These are standards I doubt you would meet.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Miniboes is being nice, you should focus on conversing with him, and the others here.

miniboes is also very confused about morality in general, thus is not going to debate this topic