Trends in Morality

[The6thMessenger]

Practical moral judgement of people's actions necessitates a sort of concept of free will.

Yes, but my answer to him is that. Free Will exists, but it's not applicable to certain situations. Because in life, we are sometimes pushed in a position, where we cannot choose, because there is only a single choice, and even if there is many, there is that compulsion of our biases working.

So basically when he asked me "Do i believe in Free Will", it's rooted on Morality than all on it's own?

I'm not entirely sure why he asked that, but that is how it's related, so that's where I took it. He may have asked that for an entirely different reason that I didn't follow.

I guess it's my fault, maybe he did mean that Free Will as he asked is rooted in morality since it's a thread about it. Maybe not though.

-

Exactly. Out of Factors, sometimes things go your way and don't, sometimes things go out of control or don't.

I would say that free will "somewhat" exists, because there are just events that has a certain range of what we can control, but still there is just many other factors that we can't control.

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, i'm simply saying that it exists, but there are many situations that it doesn't matter because even if other choices exists, we are a bit compelled to choose a specific choice, due to many factors, such as biases.

I kind of would. "Free" will as it stands is a sort of incoherent term, which has been mangled by theistic tradition. Yes, maybe it can be reclaimed as Dennett argues, but it may be more useful just to define it more specifically and rigorously.

I would prefer to talk about an existential will, or actualized will; the will we will to have. A sort of meta-will. Free not from our natures, which are ultimately environmental and random as well, but free from impositions upon our natures that we will not.

I'm not sure if that was helpful, or just confused you more.

You just confused me more. But i guess if i were to take a crack at it, if we were to define Free Will in everyday use as in we can use our own volition to choose between the set of choices. Maybe you already said that, but again i'm confused.

Yes, but still generally we have an idea of what sexy is, because it's rooted in our evolutionary roots, that allows us to tell the "Fertility" of a woman.

Sure, and we can say that about anything, but I don't think it's relevant. Things have causes; that doesn't negate the notion that somebody may want to embody them, or reject them, and doesn't make one right or one wrong.
We can reject the biological notion, or accept it, and that it had a biological source doesn't make either right or wrong.

Yes, but still it shows our compulsion, that we as a human being generally see a consistent sense of "Sexy", which can be apart from our free will.

While, yes we can choose to have different standards of beauty. Still it's a nagging compulsion for many of us.

Just that it's a compulsion is all that matters, not so much where it came from.

I suppose. But the fact that our compulsion exists, giving us a heavy bias of a specific choice, that may make our free will questionable.

The questions we have to ask ourselves, in terms of morality, is if it's a generally good compulsion, or a bad one.
The questions we have to ask ourselves in terms of free will and culpability, is if we fought it, or embraced it (such as, when it threatened to be harmful), and how hard we fought if we did.

There's a huge moral difference between a pedophile who embraces his identity as a pedosexual, and rationalizes his harm to others or just doesn't care, and a pedophile who considers his urges a curse, and fights them, and seeks help to fight them. Even if they both end up doing the same things, one of these people was just rotten to the core, living out his dreams, and the other was essentially good, trapped in a nightmare and driven by uncontrollable compulsion.

That's true. But while you are free to seek help, if you are pedosexual by biological factors, then you are not free to choose how you feel.

And that is what i'm pointing out.

Just as with clinical depression, you can't help to feel sad. You can ask for help from doctors, but your freedom only extends to that. But even then, in itself, to fix yourself might be just as well a strong compulsion (you just have to fix yourself because reasons), that questions Free Will.

But as we kind of said, Morality is Objective, and it necessitates that Free Will exist.

Maybe Chance has something to do with it as well? I'm still pondering.

I have no idea where he (Knot) get this Solipsism from.

Out of Topic:

This is kind of fun. ^_^

[brimstoneSalad]

Because in life, we are sometimes pushed in a position, where we cannot choose, because there is only a single choice, and even if there is many, there is that compulsion of our biases working.

That's only a matter that impinges on "free will" if they are external biases, which are not part of one's existential identity.

In the case of the two pedophiles, the first one that embraces his pedophilia has free will, the latter who fights it (and does it anyway) does not have fully free will.

In a very crude, fatalistic, and cynical sense, free will can be choosing to want what you were biologically predisposed to want -- but that also makes you responsible for those biological urges, whereas somebody who fights them may be a blameless victim.

You just confused me more. But i guess if i were to take a crack at it, if we were to define Free Will in everyday use as in we can use our own volition to choose between the set of choices. Maybe you already said that, but again i'm confused.

Not really. It comes down to the nature of the compulsion, and how you feel about it.


Bob does not want to eat chocolate. Bob has an obsessive craving for chocolate. He considers it a curse. Bob eats chocolate all day, but it is not an act of free will (it may be an act of a weak will, but that's another issue).

Joe Loves chocolate. He wants to eat chocolate, but more than that, he considers himself a chocolate connoisseur. It's a big part of his identity; it's something that makes Joe Joe, and he wouldn't change it for the world. Joe eats chocolate all day, and he also has an obsessive craving for chocolate, but that's irrelevant because he wants to eat it. His eating chocolate is an act of free will.

You don't have to have the ability to choose something else in order for it to be freely willed.

Yes, but still it shows our compulsion, that we as a human being generally see a consistent sense of "Sexy", which can be apart from our free will.

Depends on how you regard it in yourself. See above.

I suppose. But the fact that our compulsion exists, giving us a heavy bias of a specific choice, that may make our free will questionable.

Only if we have given up and given into it, and identified with that bias as part of our essential existential identities.

That's true. But while you are free to seek help, if you are pedosexual by biological factors, then you are not free to choose how you feel.

What matters is not how he feels, but how he feels about how he feels.

But as we kind of said, Morality is Objective, and it necessitates that Free Will exist.

Well, morality doesn't exactly need free will, so much as uses the concept in the context of a social framework of culpability.
It oils the gears; otherwise things would be a bit clunky in terms of execution.

Morality still works without free will, but it's very strict and makes it very difficult to judge people as culpable or not for actions. The notion of free will is the point where we say not just that what you did was bad, but that you're responsible for it and it's your fault.

[The6thMessenger]

So, what now?

[brimstoneSalad]

So, what now?

I suppose I would ask a personal question.

In terms of meat-eating, and its harms, which do you identify more with?

There's a huge moral difference between a pedophile who embraces his identity as a pedosexual, makes excuses about it being his nature, and rationalizes his harm to others or just doesn't care, and a pedophile who considers his urges a curse, and fights them, and seeks help to fight them. Even if they both end up doing the same things, one of these people was just rotten to the core, living out his dreams, and the other was essentially good, trapped in a nightmare and driven by uncontrollable compulsion.

Are you a person who reluctantly eats meat due to habit, or the addictive qualities of meat (fat, taste, possibly metabolic effects for some people), and at core doesn't really want to eat it, and don't want to identify as somebody who would cause harm unnecessarily and in an irrational/self destructive way.
"Vegan at heart, but not in habit"
Or the other?

[The6thMessenger]

So, what now?

I suppose I would ask a personal question.

In terms of meat-eating, and its harms, which do you identify more with?

Well, i am a meat-eater. It's just tasty.

While i acknowledge the fact that meat-eating is unhealthy long term, just as well as there are tasty vegan food, and morality speaking, the best position is veganism.

I just find meat tasty, i like meat. I don't mind having only 60 - 70 years of lifespan than like up to 90. And i'm not that too hung up in morality.Not that i'm eating meat frequently, but nowadays i eat mostly wheat rasin-bread, and as asian majority of our main food is rice.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, i am a meat-eater. It's just tasty.

That doesn't really answer the question. Are you a person who happens to eat meat, or do you identify as a "meat eater" as the core aspect of your personhood? Like a Christian would label his or herself "christian" and it's an essential part of his or her selfhood.

Are you the pedophile who proudly identifies as a pedosexual, it's who he is, and who he wants to be, and "don't try to change me!"
Or are you more the reluctant pedophile, who understands it's wrong, but struggles with unwanted urges that he knows are harmful?

While i acknowledge the fact that meat-eating is unhealthy long term, just as well as there are tasty vegan food, and morality speaking, the best position is veganism.

If that's so, then why do you eat it?
Do you prefer to identify as a rational, or irrational person?
The rational thing to do would be to quit eating it, given that information, even if you aren't much emotionally bothered by it.
Many people go vegan for entirely rational and logical reasons of intellectual honesty, rather than for emotional reasons.

I just find meat tasty, i like meat.

Most vegans, particularly new ones, find meat tasty and like meat. That doesn't mean you have to eat it.
Hypothetically, isn't rape sexually enjoyable to people? Is that a good reason to do it?

As a being with the capacity for impulse control, you can make a rational decision to choose not to.

Taste changes. After you stop eating it for a while, like quitting smoking, the craving will go away, and eventually you will lose interest in eating meat as you find other things you like more.

And i'm not that too hung up in morality.

Are you invested in being deliberately immoral and irrational?
If you don't care too much either way, but recognize the sound reasoning, why don't you do the rational thing?

If you care about morality at all -- even if just because you don't like when others behave in harmful ways through religion, or fanaticism -- why don't you choose to be consistent, and cut out the hypocrisy?
Is is not hypocritical to criticize suicide bombers, Christian anti-abortion terrorists, or Islamic fundamentalists for their behavior when knowingly engaging in wrong behavior yourself? Or even just the run of the mill rapist and murderer -- we have no grounds to criticize them without reflecting on our own behavior too.

It's easy enough to do. There are lots of other things to eat. You could even eat oysters, which probably aren't sentient, if you really just wanted to keep annoying the irrational militant vegans, but still achieve a level of intellectual consistency.

Not that i'm eating meat frequently, but nowadays i eat mostly wheat rasin-bread, and as asian majority of our main food is rice.

Then it should be easy to quit eating it, right?

[The6thMessenger]

That doesn't really answer the question. Are you a person who happens to eat meat, or do you identify as a "meat eater" as the core aspect of your personhood? Like a Christian would label his or herself "christian" and it's an essential part of his or her selfhood.

It's in my profile info on the side. I'm a meat-eater.

If that's so, then why do you eat it?
Do you prefer to identify as a rational, or irrational person?
The rational thing to do would be to quit eating it, given that information, even if you aren't much emotionally bothered by it.
Many people go vegan for entirely rational and logical reasons of intellectual honesty, rather than for emotional reasons.

I eat meat because it's tasty, and it's satisfying.

Eating meat or being a vegan does not judge a person as a whole, you can be a good person while being a meat-eater, and a total asshole while being a vegan. I can be rational, and irrational, and i'm only rational to those things that is important, and to me eating isn't that important to be too rational about. I'm only rational as far as not to eat poison, or to not eat someone elses' food, not that too specific though.

I just find meat tasty, i like meat.

Most vegans, particularly new ones, find meat tasty and like meat. That doesn't mean you have to eat it.
Hypothetically, isn't rape sexually enjoyable to people? Is that a good reason to do it?

Yeah, but i like to eat, because it's satisfying.

Okay, let's assume that you're not equating rape = eating. Of course you meant the means of eating.

But the thing is that, in our current society Rape is outlawed, while killing animals for food is not. As simple as that.

As a being with the capacity for impulse control, you can make a rational decision to choose not to.

Yes, but i choose not to.

Taste changes. After you stop eating it for a while, like quitting smoking, the craving will go away, and eventually you will lose interest in eating meat as you find other things you like more.

Sure, but i'm simply not interested in doing so.

And i'm not that too hung up in morality.

Are you invested in being deliberately immoral and irrational?
If you don't care too much either way, but recognize the sound reasoning, why don't you do the rational thing?

You can say that i'm a selfish person, Lawful Evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil - Type 1 and type 2

My morality (as in how i specifically judge good or evil) only goes as far as my interests, and the interests of those important to me.

Other animals isn't just that important to me, unless they are my pet, and has further use than food for me. And the limits of what i can do is simply what is illegal or legal to the current society i am within, give or take when my "honor" or own principles requires it. Like if my sister is raped, then i don't give a shit about the law, i will nuke the bastard(s).

While rape might be legal at some point, i simply won't because my own code of "honor" requires it. You can say that if i grew up in a messed up place like Saudi Arabia, i might be messed up too, yes i agree with it completely. But if my current society adapts/adopts (don't know which word fits) to a muslim Shari'a law, i won't follow it, because Shari'a largely does not follow my own moral code.

Because i'm not interested to do so. Simple as that. There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking through it.

I know that i'm evil, the least i could do is be honest about it. I'm also affably evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

If you care about morality at all -- even if just because you don't like when others behave in harmful ways through religion, or fanaticism -- why don't you choose to be consistent, and cut out the hypocrisy?

Well, i'm a Evil, just that. While i know the proper Morality, i simply have my own codes. While many of my own codes are parallel to the proper Morality, there are just some that isn't. Like what and what not to eat, because it's just not that important to me.

While other people who aren't that important to me, i can muster a bit of empathy and compassion for them, only as far as they are a part of my society and serves more purpose than just cannon-fodder or any other equivalent trash values, and i only provide such because "a happy worker is a productive worker". Acting "proper" and "kind" in our current society simply warrants better benefits.

You can say that i see other humans as tools, but only a bit more than that because i have favoritism, and like to my PC i do get attached to material things. I also recycle. ^_^ I only throw away (metaphorically speaking), those absolute trash of a human that can't be "recycled" (like they served me properly and deserves to be properly treated back) and earned my favor.

It's easy enough to do. There are lots of other things to eat. You could even eat oysters, which probably aren't sentient, if you really just wanted to keep annoying the irrational militant vegans, but still achieve a level of intellectual consistency.

Unless i'm deliberately not caring about it.

Not that i'm eating meat frequently, but nowadays i eat mostly wheat rasin-bread, and as asian majority of our main food is rice.

Then it should be easy to quit eating it, right?

Yeah. But really that's for health reason, like i'm overweight and i'm trying to get my weight down. But eventually if i controlled my weight, i might just continue eating meat.

Besides, Veganism is too demanding that even non-food is required not to be used. I'm already looking at lots of wall of texts, i don't need additional headaches like that.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's in my profile info on the side. I'm a meat-eater.

Just because something is in a profile field on the internet doesn't mean it's part of your self identity, and that if you changed it you would no longer be the same person.

Christians consider themselves "born again" as Christians -- an entirely different person -- not just something incidental in a profile field. Deep seated.

Eating meat or being a vegan does not judge a person as a whole, you can be a good person while being a meat-eater, and a total asshole while being a vegan.

It's possible, but not if you're doing it knowingly, deliberately, and wantonly like you are, when you know it's totally unnecessary and bad for you and have no interest in stopping.

You're engaging in irrational, immoral, lose-lose behavior. You know this to be so. Choosing to act like that makes you a bad person, inherently, like the pedophile who chooses to identify and pedosexual, and likes that he harms children. You're equally bad people at heart. You are no better a person than the pedophile. By accident of environment you just don't happen to have those urges.


That's why I asked if it was merely incidental, or not.

If being an irrational meat eater was just something you did, and not part of who you want to be, you could still be a good person who just incidentally does some bad things but doesn't want to.

Can you be a good person while choosing to rape and murder children for enjoyment, because you like to, not because you need to?
No. That would make you a bad person, just like this does.


You don't have to be that kind of person. You could change in an instant, by just deciding you want to be a good person instead. It's that easy. Of course, then you have to start caring and working at it, but that will come in time; few people quit smoking in the first go, the important point is just wanting to be better.

I can be rational, and irrational, and i'm only rational to those things that is important, and to me eating isn't that important to be too rational about.

No, that just makes you irrational. Caring about rationality means acting consistently in rational terms, not picking and choosing.
People who care about rationality may resentfully behave rationally, even when they would prefer not to -- that's what makes a person rational, that's what having values means. Not just doing the same thing a rational person might do when it suits them, and doing whatever irrational thing when it doesn't.

You're like a Christian saying she is 'scientific' about the things she wants to be scientific about; that's not how it works. You can't pick and choose. A person who does that doesn't value that thing.

You are not a rational person if you do not feel motivated to behave consistently rationally. You don't really care about science if you can just throw it out the window the instant in contradicts "the bible", or whatever you wanted to believe.

You need to understand that. Valuing something means legitimately caring about it and being consistent, not pretending to care about it when it suits your whim. Having values, or a code of any kind means following it even when you don't want to -- especially when you don't want to.

I'm only rational as far as not to eat poison, or to not eat someone elses' food, not that too specific though.

You are eating poison, and you are eating something that belongs to another.
It's a slow acting poison, a carcinogen and a promoter of heart disease a diabetes. And now knowing that you're already overweight, that makes it even worse. Your risk factors are way higher. It's entirely irrational for you to be destroying yourself AND harming others at the same time.

Do you even want to live? Why?

Yeah, but i like to eat, because it's satisfying.

Many things are satisfying. Many vegan things are also satisfying to eat. Your life is very empty and pathetic if eating is all that holds meaning in it and you can't be bothered to explore other ways of finding satisfaction in life.

Why do you even want to live? Why don't you just do heroin? It would be much more satisfying.

But the thing is that, in our current society Rape is outlawed, while killing animals for food is not. As simple as that.

Something is not right because it's legal, or wrong because it's illegal. Law provide an additional layer of negative consequences.
You know that, stop pretending otherwise.

In terms of legal consequences, you only face those if you get caught -- you know that too. "It's only cheating if you get caught." If you were to rape people and be careful about it, you would never get caught and never suffer legal consequences.

You don't care about the law, stop pretending you do and that you have some kind of "code". That's bullshit.

If it's consequences you want:

Aside from legal matters, you already have a number of negative consequences from eating meat. Your bad diet has made you unhealthy, and your immorality will make you increasingly unpopular as you express your nihilism and lack of moral value to others. Choosing to lack values, even rationality, will not make you popular for anybody with an iota of intelligence. We don't respect or trust people who are inconsistent and have no values.

Your existence is the best argument FOR theism -- that atheists are useless lazy amoral pieces of shit? You embody that. You are a walking argument for theism.

If you were a christian, at least you might care about being a "good person", if only to avoid hell fire. Now you can't even lift a finger to reduce harm in the world even when it may help you avoid a heart attack.

Nobody will ever truly love you if you can't be a good enough person to deserve it.
Maybe you don't care. Maybe you don't want to be happy in life, you just want immediate gratification until you die.
Again, why don't you just do heroin? That would get you to both faster, and provide more pleasure along the way. You don't care about the law, don't pretend you do.

Yes, but i choose not to.

That's what makes you a bad person. And it's what makes you irrational, lacking any intellectual value. It's also what makes you a hypocrite, when you pretend to care about other things that hinge on having consistent and rational values.

You can't argue with theists when you're a walking billboard against atheism.

My morality (as in how i specifically judge good or evil) only goes as far as my interests, and the interests of those important to me.

We already went over this ad nauseam. That is not morality. Don't use those terms.
Personal "morality" has no more meaning than personal "science".

If you do it again, I'm going to have to conclude that you're just trolling, and you're not honestly trying to communicate here.

Other animals isn't just that important to me,

It doesn't matter if you care about them. I have said this clearly and repeatedly, and you ignore it. People can be vegan for reasons of intellectual honesty -- following an actually consistent code of rationality -- without caring about animals at all.

You don't care about being rational -- that's the problem. And you're a hypocrite for pretending to care about science, and other matters, or trying to argue that these things have value to others.
If you cared at all about being rational -- about ever being rational, you can't pick and choose -- you would behave morally (particularly when it's so easy, and useful to your own health) just for the sake of consistency.

You don't have to emotionally care about anything to value being rational. But if you don't even value that, then you have no true values.

You can say that i'm a selfish person, Lawful Evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil - Type 1 and type 2

You have no code, stop bullshitting. In order to have a code, you have to be consistent. You follow only your whim.
When rationality doesn't follow your whim? You throw it out.
When law doesn't follow your whim? Ignore it.
You don't actually care about anything.

A code at least can be respected. You can not be, because you're irrational. Your an embodiment of intellectual dishonesty.

And the limits of what i can do is simply what is illegal or legal to the current society i am within

No, they are not. Law means nothing to you. See:

, give or take when my "honor" or own principles requires it. Like if my sister is raped, then i don't give a shit about the law, i will nuke the bastard(s).

Nothing is consistent for you at all. You are not lawful. Stop insulting us with your lies and delusions. You pick and choose whatever fits your whim at any moment.

If you really had a code and would respect the law no matter what, I could at least have some respect for that. It's a mindless dogma, but it's something. You value nothing, you just follow whims based on your feels.

You're not different from any irrational modern day salad bar Christian, picking and choosing prejudices and tolerances and biblical laws he or she fancies with no regard for reason. Actually, you are different: You're worse, because you should know better, but choose obtuse ignorance instead.

While rape might be legal at some point, i simply won't because my own code of "honor" requires it. You can say that if i grew up in a messed up place like Saudi Arabia, i might be messed up too, yes i agree with it completely. But if my current society adapts/adopts (don't know which word fits) to a muslim Shari'a law, i won't follow it, because Shari'a largely does not follow my own moral code.

You have no code, as I have demonstrated. You have whim. Whatever you fancy is how it goes.

You have no morals. This has been discussed at length. Stop using the word incorrectly to describe your personal whims. We have discussed at length what morality is in philosophy. If you keep trolling, you will not find yourself welcome for long.

If you turn into a broken record and go back on this issue which we have already concluded, it will not bode well for you.

I know that i'm evil, the least i could do is be honest about it. I'm also affably evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

You are not affable, and you are not honest. Stop pretending you have a code. You're just insulting everybody who does actually have real codes of values.

You have whim; that's all you have.
You are chaotic. You do whatever the fuck you want, like most short sighted hedonistic idiots out there.

If you had anything like a code, that would at least be something I could have some respect for. Fundamentalist Christians even outrank you on the scale of intellectual honesty. That's really pathetic.

Do you like being like this? Having no consistent values? It gets you off or something?

Besides, Veganism is too demanding that even non-food is required not to be used. I'm already looking at lots of wall of texts, i don't need additional headaches like that.

Vegans don't have to read anything. What the hell are you talking about?

I agree with PETA's position on this: http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

Don't worry about the little things. There's no reason to be obsessive about it. It doesn't have to consume your life.

It's just a matter of putting the most general effort out there and not going out of your way to intentionally eat animal products.

Put the same effort into not eating meat that most non-rapists put into not raping people, and you'll be fine.

[The6thMessenger]

Christians consider themselves "born again" as Christians -- an entirely different person -- not just something incidental in a profile field. Deep seated.

Well, not as deep.

It's possible, but not if you're doing it knowingly, deliberately, and wantonly like you are, when you know it's totally unnecessary and bad for you and have no interest in stopping.

Yes, but really there is much more to the world than what you eat. You may have no compassion to any other animal, but to your own kin, and helped a lot of people.

You're engaging in irrational, immoral, lose-lose behavior. You know this to be so. Choosing to act like that makes you a bad person, inherently, like the pedophile who chooses to identify and pedosexual, and likes that he harms children. You're equally bad people at heart. You are no better a person than the pedophile. By accident of environment you just don't happen to have those urges.

Well, sure. But really the worth of a pedophile and meat eater is inherently different. Like a false dichoctomy of you either are or aren't in that category.

If being an irrational meat eater was just something you did, and not part of who you want to be, you could still be a good person who just incidentally does some bad things but doesn't want to.

Possibly, i'm evil.

Can you be a good person while choosing to rape and murder children for enjoyment, because you like to, not because you need to?
No. That would make you a bad person, just like this does.

Like i said, i am evil.

You don't have to be that kind of person. You could change in an instant, by just deciding you want to be a good person instead. It's that easy. Of course, then you have to start caring and working at it, but that will come in time; few people quit smoking in the first go, the important point is just wanting to be better.

Sure, but it's not in my interest. For me it's a waste of my time.

No, that just makes you irrational. Caring about rationality means acting consistently in rational terms, not picking and choosing.

Whatever you say. But still i can be rational in some things, and irrational in others, because eating meat isn't the absolute place or the only place to judge rationality. You may have your own standards, but i don't have to follow it.

People who care about rationality may resentfully behave rationally, even when they would prefer not to -- that's what makes a person rational, that's what having values means. Not just doing the same thing a rational person might do when it suits them, and doing whatever irrational thing when it doesn't.

Based on whose authority? Even better, why in the first place?

You're like a Christian saying she is 'scientific' about the things she wants to be scientific about; that's not how it works. You can't pick and choose. A person who does that doesn't value that thing.

Sure, i can be like a christian if you look at that way. I concur, i can pick and choose.

I may value morality, because it's valuable for others. Keeping them in line, and keeping an act of being nice allows me to blend in in my surrounding.

You are not a rational person if you do not feel motivated to behave consistently rationally. You don't really care about science if you can just throw it out the window the instant in contradicts "the bible", or whatever you wanted to believe.

Based on whose authority?

Not science, but really morality. I stand on what is true, what is in line with reality, but i don't have that much compassion to avail for morality.

You need to understand that. Valuing something means legitimately caring about it and being consistent, not pretending to care about it when it suits your whim. Having values, or a code of any kind means following it even when you don't want to -- especially when you don't want to.

Yes, i agree. But i just don't give a fuck-damn on some things, and legitimately care on the others.

I'm only rational as far as not to eat poison, or to not eat someone elses' food, not that too specific though.

You are eating poison, and you are eating something that belongs to another.
It's a slow acting poison, a carcinogen and a promoter of heart disease a diabetes. And now knowing that you're already overweight, that makes it even worse. Your risk factors are way higher. It's entirely irrational for you to be destroying yourself AND harming others at the same time.

True. But when we're talking about poison, those literally the things that will kill you in a short time. And really, you don't have to be a genius to understand that in that i am talking about the food of another person.

Do you even want to live? Why?

To be happy.

Yeah, but i like to eat, because it's satisfying.

Many things are satisfying. Many vegan things are also satisfying to eat. Your life is very empty and pathetic if eating is all that holds meaning in it and you can't be bothered to explore other ways of finding satisfaction in life.

That's true. If i were just into eating alone.

I'm also in to creative writing, i compose, i like watching movies, playing games. There are many things about me.

Why do you even want to live? Why don't you just do heroin? It would be much more satisfying.

Because i want to be happy.

I don't do heroin because i'm not interested. Satisfying for you maybe.

But the thing is that, in our current society Rape is outlawed, while killing animals for food is not. As simple as that.

Something is not right because it's legal, or wrong because it's illegal. Law provide an additional layer of negative consequences.
You know that, stop pretending otherwise.

I know that i know that, and i'm not petending. But simply i don't have that much interest on what is right or wrong as much as what is illegal or not.

In terms of legal consequences, you only face those if you get caught -- you know that too. "It's only cheating if you get caught." If you were to rape people and be careful about it, you would never get caught and never suffer legal consequences.

That's true. But i do have my own principle.

You don't care about the law, stop pretending you do and that you have some kind of "code". That's bullshit.

You know what's bullshit, you telling me what to feel, or what i am even feeling right now. I have my own principles that i follow, it's not necessarily in line of your morality, vegan morality, or anyone elses, but i do have one.

Aside from legal matters, you already have a number of negative consequences from eating meat.Your bad diet has made you unhealthy, and

Okay.

your immorality will make you increasingly unpopular as you express your nihilism and lack of moral value to others.

Choosing to lack values, even rationality, will not make you popular for anybody with an iota of intelligence.

Sure. I'm not that into popularity anyways.

We don't respect or trust people who are inconsistent and have no values.

Okay sure. But you don't really know me that well.

Choosing to lack values, even rationality, will not make you popular for anybody with an iota of intelligence.

Your existence is the best argument FOR theism -- that atheists are useless lazy amoral pieces of shit? You embody that. You are a walking argument for theism.[/quote]

Okay.

Choosing to lack values, even rationality, will not make you popular for anybody with an iota of intelligence.[/quote]If you were a christian, at least you might care about being a "good person", if only to avoid hell fire. Now you can't even lift a finger to reduce harm in the world even when it may help you avoid a heart attack.[/quote]

Okay.

Nobody will ever truly love you if you can't be a good enough person to deserve it.

You'll be surprised. You're not everybody, and the world does not revolve on vegan/non-vegan issue.

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you don't want to be happy in life, you just want immediate gratification until you die.

Refer above, somewhere.

Again, why don't you just do heroin? That would get you to both faster, and provide more pleasure along the way. You don't care about the law, don't pretend you do.

Because simply i'm not in to heroin, because it has the specific disadvantages i can't stand.

I care about the law, because without it, there'd be anarchy, and i hate disorder.

Yes, but i choose not to.

That's what makes you a bad person. And it's what makes you irrational, lacking any intellectual value. It's also what makes you a hypocrite, when you pretend to care about other things that hinge on having consistent and rational values.

You can't argue with theists when you're a walking billboard against atheism.[/quote]

Like i said, evil. I don't pretend to care on other things, i legitimately care on other things, but not on other things.

Atheism is simply just lack of belief in god. It's like you're the one having the religion. Being an atheist does not tie me to any obligations.

My morality (as in how i specifically judge good or evil) only goes as far as my interests, and the interests of those important to me.

We already went over this ad nauseam. That is not morality. Don't use those terms.
Personal "morality" has no more meaning than personal "science".

Fine. As how i specifically judge good or evil goes only as far as my interests, and the interests of those important to me.

It's like you're an English teacher.

If you do it again, I'm going to have to conclude that you're just trolling, and you're not honestly trying to communicate here.

No, i am honest. I'm serious, i am kind of evil like that. You finding it inacceptible is not legitimate grounds of trolling. You're the one who asked my position on Meat-Eating/Veganism, this is it.

I am messed up. We can always stop.

Other animals isn't just that important to me,

It doesn't matter if you care about them. I have said this clearly and repeatedly, and you ignore it. People can be vegan for reasons of intellectual honesty -- following an actually consistent code of rationality -- without caring about animals at all.

You can call it inconsistent if you want, it is what it is.

You don't care about being rational -- that's the problem. And you're a hypocrite for pretending to care about science, and other matters, or trying to argue that these things have value to others.

Not at all, i care for what is true and in line with reality, i'm simply not that interested to morality.

If you cared at all about being rational -- about ever being rational, you can't pick and choose -- you would behave morally (particularly when it's so easy, and useful to your own health) just for the sake of consistency.

Sure, then i'm not rational.

You don't have to emotionally care about anything to value being rational. But if you don't even value that, then you have no true values.

Sure, but i want to. I may care on my own children, but don't give a shit about other people.

You can say that i'm a selfish person, Lawful Evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil - Type 1 and type 2

You have no code, stop bullshitting. In order to have a code, you have to be consistent. You follow only your whim.

Nothing is consistent for you at all. You are not lawful. Stop insulting us with your lies and delusions. You pick and choose whatever fits your whim at any moment.

You don't me well enough.

If you really had a code and would respect the law no matter what, I could at least have some respect for that. It's a mindless dogma, but it's something. You value nothing, you just follow whims based on your feels.

Refer on the reaction above.

You have no code, as I have demonstrated. You have whim. Whatever you fancy is how it goes.

I did say "Required".

And like i said, you don't know me well enough. Damn we only met in this forum.

You have no morals. This has been discussed at length. Stop using the word incorrectly to describe your personal whims. We have discussed at length what morality is in philosophy. If you keep trolling, you will not find yourself welcome for long.

Fine. But i wouldn't call it whims, because whims are constantly changing.

A personal code and principle is what one limits himself.

If i'm incorrect, like say a test of 50/100, and the teacher corrected answers that were supposed to be wrong, i'd rather fail than cheat to pass, and i do.

Like i said, you don't know me well enough.

I know that i'm evil, the least i could do is be honest about it. I'm also affably evil. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

You are not affable, and you are not honest. Stop pretending you have a code. You're just insulting everybody who does actually have real codes of values.

Like i said, you don't know me well enough. Having different codes doesn't mean i don't have one. I have my own limits i impose to myself, just not the same limits as you have.

You have whim; that's all you have.
You are chaotic. You do whatever the fuck you want, like most short sighted hedonistic idiots out there.

''

Like i said, you don't know me well enough.

If you had anything like a code, that would at least be something I could have some respect for. Fundamentalist Christians even outrank you on the scale of intellectual honesty. That's really pathetic.

Do you like being like this? Having no consistent values? It gets you off or something?

No, if you only got me correctly. As far as i'm concerned, i'm not required to follow your standards, it's just you and your poor assumptions of me as a person.

Besides, Veganism is too demanding that even non-food is required not to be used. I'm already looking at lots of wall of texts, i don't need additional headaches like that.

Vegans don't have to read anything. What the hell are you talking about?

It was on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1tvLDrdH0, TVA had to read lots of the items to know if any products involves animal stuffs in it. And i'm not into something like that.

It's just a matter of putting the most general effort out there and not going out of your way to intentionally eat animal products. Put the same effort into not eating meat that most non-rapists put into not raping people, and you'll be fine.

Meat eating is not that as bad as rape out there, so it's not a concern for me.

You know, we can stop. You're already jumping into conclusions when you don't know me well. I am very much serious with what i am telling you, i don't know what criteria you are using to tell that i'm "trolling", but i'm serious. And if you can't understand understand where i'm coming from, we should just stop right here.

PS:

After taking this: http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html

I'm Lawful Neutral. Okay, at least i'm lawful.

[brimstoneSalad]

It was on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1tvLDrdH0, TVA had to read lots of the items to know if any products involves animal stuffs in it. And i'm not into something like that.

You don't have to do that, he just does it. It's completely unnecessary.
All you need to do is not go out of your way to eat obvious animal products.

There are plenty of lazy vegans; you make an odd mistake now and then -- it's better than doing nothing.

The problem is you're going out of your way to eat animal products when it's harmful to you.

Christians consider themselves "born again" as Christians -- an entirely different person -- not just something incidental in a profile field. Deep seated.

Well, not as deep.

Then at least be open minded to changing your stance on the matter.

What are your concerns, really?
As I've said, you don't have to be obsessive about it. TVA may not be the best example in that regard.

And of course you can eat with other people. Just don't be a jerk at the table.
And on the off chance you care about the people you're eating with, setting a positive example for health will actually help them.
Being vegan and social (even without saying anything) inspires others around you to eat less meat and more vegetables, which improves their health and lifespans too.

After taking this: http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html

I'm Lawful Neutral. Okay, at least i'm lawful.

Identifying as neutral is a step up, and much less trollish.
You need to accept criticism on your inconsistencies though.

If you cared at all about being rational -- about ever being rational, you can't pick and choose -- you would behave morally (particularly when it's so easy, and useful to your own health) just for the sake of consistency.

Following from your comment on neutrality, I should note that I misspoke here; I should have said "at least amorally".

An amoral, or neutral, person can be rational.

A rational person who is amoral can engage in Win-Lose behavior, taking from others for personal benefit. But can not engage in Lose-Lose behavior, because harming the self is not in one's rational self interest (it is not rational selfishness), unless one didn't care about life because one had no other values (which, of course, probably means being chaotic at best).

Any rational, intelligent, scientifically minded person who subscribes to some kind of egoism or rational self interest would follow a mostly pure vegetarian diet for purposes of health, because self destruction is irrational (given one values at least oneself).
Said person wouldn't be vegan, though, because actions like wearing leather, or going hunting for sport, are not necessarily harmful to health.

You can still be an amoral piece of shit and basically be rational. Just not an arbitrarily immoral one. There are ways to cause harm without harming yourself, or in benefiting yourself somehow, and that's conceivable.

Yes, but really there is much more to the world than what you eat. You may have no compassion to any other animal, but to your own kin, and helped a lot of people.

Sure, there are lots of ways to be a bad person. But doing something good based on a whim doesn't make you a good or even a neutral person in nature.

You could gleefully and unapologetically rape and murder a bunch of children, and then send a few hundred dollars to Africa to help starving children and save lives; would that balance out? Are you a good person now?

The sum of your murderous actions may be more neutral upon the world, but when we ask if a person is good, we also have to look at intent and ability. We're evaluating the nature of the person, not just its effects.
When a person intentionally and of free will does evil things, a trivial gesture to the contrary doesn't cancel that out.

It's difficult to rape and murder children, he had to go out of his way and put in a lot of work. This was not rationally beneficial to him. The fact that he did it anyway makes it much worse.
It was very easy to send a trivial sum to Africa, it probably took a few minutes and didn't make an appreciable difference to his bank account. That makes it much less meaningful.

Assuming the good he did was even intentional at all, the will to good in him is still vastly outweighed by the will to evil.

Comparing to your case, that's assuming you even will be able to make up for the harm you do to animals by your actions at all. Animal agriculture is so extensive, and the suffering so extreme, that is by no means clear.

It's easy to generally avoid animal products as a lazy vegan, and you do harm to yourself by consuming animal products anyway -- those facts make what you're doing much worse.
Whatever you're supposedly doing "for people" is probably some trivial first world bullshit feel good charity like giving sick kids video games. That's cool if that's what you like to do, but it's not really meaningfully good. But even if it is meaningful and cost effective by some long shot, it's doubtful that you're putting any appreciable effort into it beyond what it takes to make you feel good about yourself.

You're in a red queen's race, where any "good" you incidentally do to make you feel better is undermined by the suffering you deliberately cause as you're doing it and have no rational excuse for because it harms you too.

But really the worth of a pedophile and meat eater is inherently different. Like a false dichoctomy of you either are or aren't in that category.

How do you think you substantiate that?

Whatever you say. But still i can be rational in some things, and irrational in others, because eating meat isn't the absolute place or the only place to judge rationality. You may have your own standards, but i don't have to follow it.

You do have to follow basic logic if you want to post here, you can't dismiss arguments like this.

Do you not remember how we talked about Christians only being accidentally moral in behavior, because their actions are not substantiated by a realistic world views based on science?

If your actions just incidentally happen to line up with what a rational person would do, that is NOT you being rational in those things. It's purely accidental.
Being rational about something stems from valuing rationality, and doing it on purpose. Not just accidentally doing something a rational person would do because you wanted to anyway for non-rational reasons.

People who care about rationality may resentfully behave rationally, even when they would prefer not to -- that's what makes a person rational, that's what having values means. Not just doing the same thing a rational person might do when it suits them, and doing whatever irrational thing when it doesn't.

Based on whose authority? Even better, why in the first place?

You don't need "authority" to understand that 1+1=2. Don't ask upon whose authority logic is based.
Why? Because they value rationality. That's the nature of a value; it compels action in its favor, if it is sincere.

Are you asking why value rationality?
Because if you are to value anything at all, rationality is necessary to realize values.
Values without rationality are inconsistent. This is why religion contradicts itself.

The only thing you can consistently be without valuing rationality is some kind of nihilist. Believe in nothing at all (true chaotic), and there's no need to value rationality to substantiate that. Just don't claim to be lawful.

You are not a rational person if you do not feel motivated to behave consistently rationally. You don't really care about science if you can just throw it out the window the instant in contradicts "the bible", or whatever you wanted to believe.

Based on whose authority?

Not science, but really morality.

No, this one is just based on reason. Any value, as I said above, necessitates rationality. It's a prerequisite. This is why theists are self contradictory, when they assert moral values (or any other values), but do not have the realistic worldview necessary to enact them.

I stand on what is true, what is in line with reality, but i don't have that much compassion to avail for morality.

Then just be amoral, rather than irrationally immoral. It's the only way your values really make sense.

But simply i don't have that much interest on what is right or wrong as much as what is illegal or not.

You don't have interest in what's legal or illegal. You do not legitimately care about the law if you would violate it when you disagree with it.

You can't go vigilante if you are lawful; that is a chaotic action.

If you're going by a different set of laws, that's fine, but that means you DON'T care about what's legal or illegal where you are as you claimed. There are too many exceptions. You only incidentally follow it if it happens to line up with what you already wanted to do.

I care about the law, because without it, there'd be anarchy, and i hate disorder.

This is not caring about law. This is just having some kind of OCD, and on a whim disliking some of the results of lawlessness.

This is NOT a value. This is NOT a code. This is an emotional bias.

But i just don't give a fuck-damn on some things, and legitimately care on the others.

This is whim, and ultimately demonstrates that you don't have real values.

But i wouldn't call it whims, because whims are constantly changing.

Not necessarily; whims are unstable, and based on emotion. For example, based on how many fucks are given for a particular thing.
A real value compels action on a subject whether you care about that subject or not, because you hold that value.

Can you understand the difference?

Values are indifferent to your concern for the subject they are being applied to -- they exist independently of your feelings about who they're being applied to, and compel compliance regardless.

Whims are dependent on concern. They ultimately trump any notion of values in irrational people, and negate the meaning and purpose of those values.

You know what's bullshit, you telling me what to feel, or what i am even feeling right now.

That's not bullshit, because you're irrational. You can't understand your own beliefs and feelings, because they are inconsistent.

You're like a Christian trying to follow "the Bible". When your "code" is inconsistent, and contains contradictions, it's impossible to really follow. There are loopholes somebody could drive a truck through.

Currently, you're delusional and think your code is consistent and inerrant for you.
If you don't pay attention and try to understand my criticisms, and respond with reasoned arguments addressing my points rather than emotional outbursts that ignore the arguments being made and making blanket claims that I don't know you therefore I can't criticize you, you're going to be banned.

I have good reasons for challenging your assumption that you have a "code". You have demonstrated inconsistencies which by their nature undermine the credibility of any code you think you follow.

I've explained above with regard to law, I have explained here, and in the last post, regarding the consistency issue.

You can fix your code and make it consistent -- then you would have a valid claim to some kind of code. But until you do, you're bullshitting yourself and everybody around you by pretending to follow an inconsistent jumble of whims and contradictions and calling it a code.

I have my own principles that i follow, it's not necessarily in line of your morality, vegan morality, or anyone elses, but i do have one.

Again, no, you do not. The principles you think you follow are not even in line with your own principles. Inconsistent and self contradictory "systems" are invalid. They aren't real systems; they're jumbled messes that are ultimately ruled by whim.

You'll be surprised. You're not everybody, and the world does not revolve on vegan/non-vegan issue.

It's not about the vegan/non-vegan thing. You have said abhorrent things about your fellow human beings, and demonstrated that you have no consistent values, and don't even value rationality and consistency in itself.

The combination of your lack of emotional regard, and lack of any consistent system of core values makes you deeply disturbing, and impossible to really trust.
No sensible or intelligent person could really love you, because you express no real values to love.

You may manage to get fucked now and then if you get in shape, but nobody will love you.
Only a psychopath would even tolerate you if he or she got to know you. And well, you can't expect much love there.

Maybe somebody retarded could love you mindlessly, like a puppy. Perhaps that's something that would satisfy you.

Get your existential shit together if you want anybody to respond to you with anything other than disgust when they learn what kind of person you really are.

You can't just say you're lawful and have values; you have to earn that by demonstrating consistency, and avoiding internal contradiction and hypocrisy.

Being an atheist does not tie me to any obligations.

Merely being an atheist does not. But if you want to effectively argue with theists, there are certain necessary requirements which you do not meet.

You may be an atheist, but currently you are a billboard for theism. You show the irrationality of atheist nihilists, with no interest in morality, no consistent code, no real values, just whims.
That's a big problem if you want to stand seriously for anything.

As how i specifically judge good or evil goes only as far as my interests, and the interests of those important to me.

You can't judge good and evil based on your whims; those are moral judgement, and they do not bend to your subjective experiences. All you are judging is what you like or dislike. This is very different.

Only a child or moron confuses personally liking or disliking something with that thing being innately good or evil. The world doesn't work that way. Try to keep some perspective, and be more self aware.

True. But when we're talking about poison, those literally the things that will kill you in a short time. And really, you don't have to be a genius to understand that in that i am talking about the food of another person.

You don't have to be a genius to understand that the difference has not been substantiated.

Substantiate the relevance of both of these. Fast, slow, it's just different sorts of killing yourself.
And what does ownership matter to you? As established, you don't care about law.

Because simply i'm not in to heroin, because it has the specific disadvantages i can't stand.

How do you know you can't stand them?
You would certainly be able to stand them quite easily if you tried it.

I don't do heroin because i'm not interested. Satisfying for you maybe.

Satisfying to anybody and everybody. It's chemistry; you can't help but feel satisfied by a hit.

I don't do it, because I'm not a hedonist, and I actually have values beyond myself and my emotional whims. Real values, which I try to follow whether I'm emotionally inclined to at the moment or not.
A person with even rational self interest (which you lack) wouldn't do it because it's harmful.

What's your excuse? You have neither legitimate values, nor rational self interest.
How can you say you're not interested if you haven't tried it?

Drug addition is the stock-in-trade of the chaotic neutral.