Philosophical Vegan Forum

RedAppleGP wrote: as in the sense what it may or may not be.

What are you saying?

If you say "morality is up to the individual" you are making a very clear claim about what morality is not (objective), not indicating uncertainty as to that point.

RedAppleGP wrote: how so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

The claim of moral subjectivism is the rejection of moral realism. You're saying morality proper does not exist, not that you don't know if it exists or not.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: Yes. Not empirical fact, like "it's 50 degrees outside", but logical fact, like all bachelors are unmarried, because bachelors are unmarried men (axiomatic). It's unchanging fact (the rules themselves). Application of the rules requires scientific knowledge of the circumstances, since the rules involve minimizing violation of others wills, we have to understand what others will, and how we can minimize that harm.

oh, so like no exceptions.

If given the same situation, the same outcome applies.

It's not like "all addition equals 4"
2+2=4
1+2=4
1+1=4

That's dogmatism. Like deontology. No.

It's relative to the situation, but not opinion.

Like math
2+2=4
1+2=3
1+1=2

When the situation changes (2+2 vs. 1+1), the outcome changes. That's how morality works. But given the same situation, we can use reasoning to determine what the correct moral action is in that exact situation.

If it's the life of an innocent child vs. the life of a flea, you kill the flea, because the child has more value. If it's the life of Hitler vs. a flea, you kill Hitler, because Hitler's life has negative value (while the flea's life has a very low value, that's higher than Hitler's negative value).

The math to morality comes from looking at the likely consequences of actions. For example, killing Hitler harms Hitler, but saves millions, so the consequences are better than killing the flea.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's pretty much universal, and it's consistent.

who told you that?

We derive acceptable definitions to words from usage panels, and reason.

Learn a little about usage panels:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... sage-panel
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/books ... fta=y&_r=0
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/08/29/ins ... literally/

Do you know the difference between linguistic descriptivism and prescriptivism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

RedAppleGP wrote:well why not

It's not how language works.
If I just start redefining words based on my whim, dog hill five tooth nail wilting.

Form drizzle matches quote pincers fish?

RedAppleGP wrote:define "good person".

Gold jumper kite dream bread fill mean to.

RedAppleGP wrote:So what will matter?

Lucky tisk vehicle prance huge still fringe shell.

I see you're playing dirty.. bad move, my friend.
Folder school computer duck apple keyboard.
Pencil sky pad phone gold eccentric.
Pear culmination brimstoneSalad picture Tommy Wiseau
These do have actual translations for the record.

RedAppleGP wrote: These do have actual translations for the record.

Do you believe that arbitrarily redefining words in a confusing way that nobody will understand is effective communication?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote: These do have actual translations for the record.

Do you believe that arbitrarily redefining words in a confusing way that nobody will understand is effective communication?

yes

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote: These do have actual translations for the record.

Do you believe that arbitrarily redefining words in a confusing way that nobody will understand is effective communication?

yes

You just arbitrarily redefined yes to mean no.

Oh really?

RedAppleGP wrote:Oh really?

Really.

You don't believe that arbitrarily redefining words in a confusing way that nobody will understand is effective communication, because you're not a complete idiot.

Which is my point about morality: It doesn't mean banana pudding. It relates to values, and our behavior with respect to them; most notably, altruistic ones, since sadistic ones (semantically) more closely align with evil or immorality.

Good means good and evil means evil because that's what words mean. You could switch them around -- after all, words are just sounds -- and use them to describe the opposite concepts, but then that would just confuse everybody and defeat the purpose of language (the purpose of the words themselves).

Even the pros find the stats confounding in a chicken-or-egg way. "We don't know if a vegetarian diet causes depression and anxiety, or if people who are predisposed to those mental conditions gravitate toward vegetarianism," says Emily Deans, M.D., a Boston psychiatrist who studies the link between food and mood.

You don't believe that arbitrarily redefining words in a confusing way that nobody will understand is effective communication, because you're not a complete idiot.[/quote]
Well maybe half an idiot to be fair.

broom wrote:Which is my point about morality: It doesn't mean banana pudding. It relates to values, and our behavior with respect to them; most notably, altruistic ones, since sadistic ones (semantically) more closely align with evil or immorality.

I understand now. So in summary: morality is a mindset for the good of your fellow human beings and the universe around you. Right?

[/quote=""]Good means good and evil means evil because that's what words mean. You could switch them around -- after all, words are just sounds -- and use them to describe the opposite concepts, but then that would just confuse everybody and defeat the purpose of language (the purpose of the words themselves).[/quote]
True. I could say the entire lord's prayer and the whole Hail Mary and not believe a single phrase.

RedAppleGP wrote: I understand now. So in summary: morality is a mindset for the good of your fellow human beings and the universe around you. Right?

Right. And "good" is not what you would initially assume or think is good, or what some old book tells you what is good, but what they want for themselves. Sometimes it means asking, or doing research.

If a masochist wants to be spanked, it's good to spank him.
If another guy doesn't want to be spanked, it's bad to spank him.
(unless the consequences more greatly harm the interests of others)

It depends on the person you're dealing with, but we should always try to respect the interests of others (other sentient beings, since non-sentient things don't have interests) as much as practical and possible.

brimstoneSalad wrote: If a masochist wants to be spanked, it's good to spank him.
If another guy doesn't want to be spanked, it's bad to spank him.
(unless the consequences more greatly harm the interests of others)

well what about euthanasia?