|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 1:32:04 GMT
Absolute nonsense, because as I noted above, anarchy isn't actually possible. If nobody paid any respect to anyone else's wellbeing, it would be a society that would be dangerous for the vulnerable, and where only the strongest could thrive. It's in almost everyone's interests to subscribe to a moral codes, and to have these enforced by a system of law. Is your comment supposed to have something to do with what I just said and you quoted?
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 9, 2018 1:34:56 GMT
Well, because if there is no coherent system of morals, then that will eventually result in anarchy. Absolute nonsense, because as I noted above, anarchy isn't actually possible. ...and as nonsensical as Mic wanting to force sterilise everyone who survive his personal preference of mass homicide to kill everyone so they don't procreate because a tiny percentage of the population have less than optimal offspring, and a small percentage ( including Mic) hate the lives that chance has given them in the evolution of the species. I have given up responding to him due to boredom with the same stupid schtick over more than a decade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 1:54:50 GMT
If nobody paid any respect to anyone else's wellbeing, it would be a society that would be dangerous for the vulnerable, and where only the strongest could thrive. It's in almost everyone's interests to subscribe to a moral codes, and to have these enforced by a system of law. Is your comment supposed to have something to do with what I just said and you quoted? Yes. It signifies that even if "anarchy" isn't possible, then it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 1:56:38 GMT
Absolute nonsense, because as I noted above, anarchy isn't actually possible. ...and as nonsensical as Mic wanting to force sterilise everyone who survive his personal preference of mass homicide to kill everyone so they don't procreate because a tiny percentage of the population have less than optimal offspring, and a small percentage ( including Mic) hate the lives that chance has given them in the evolution of the species. I have given up responding to him due to boredom with the same stupid schtick over more than a decade. I haven't been propounding antinatalism for "more than a decade", only for about 2 years. The universe does not need sentient organisms. They don't serve any constructive purpose; they only harm themselves and each other. Also you didn't stop responding due to "boredom", you stated that you found the subject matter "distressing".
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 1:59:32 GMT
Is your comment supposed to have something to do with what I just said and you quoted? Yes. It signifies that even if "anarchy" isn't possible, then it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak. Wait, the question was about Why it matters if we have a system of morality and if it's coherent. That question is assuming nothing about the content of the non-systematic, incoherent moral stances. You're arguing that incoherent, non-systematic moral stances will necessarily result in specific content?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 2:03:02 GMT
Yes. It signifies that even if "anarchy" isn't possible, then it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak. Wait, the question was about Why it matters if we have a system of morality and if it's coherent. That question is assuming nothing about the content of the non-systematic, incoherent moral stances. You're arguing that incoherent, non-systematic moral stances will necessarily result in specific content? I'm arguing that not having a consistent system of morals that is systematically enforced would produce a result that was undesirable for most.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 14:47:03 GMT
Wait, the question was about Why it matters if we have a system of morality and if it's coherent. That question is assuming nothing about the content of the non-systematic, incoherent moral stances. You're arguing that incoherent, non-systematic moral stances will necessarily result in specific content? I'm arguing that not having a consistent system of morals that is systematically enforced would produce a result that was undesirable for most. What would the argument be for that? Say that someone had a set of moral stances, based on their views of the moral goodness of affection, codified into law, that said: (1) Everyone is required to hug at least four but not more than six different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. (2) Everyone is required to hug at least seven but not more than nine different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. That's inconsistent, and it might result in not as many hugs as we'd like, but a ready supply of free cookies (because no matter how many people you hug, you can be in violation depending on just who is paying attention just when, etc., and then you're required to bake free cookies), but how would that be undesirable for most?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 19:11:20 GMT
That's inconsistent, and it might result in not as many hugs as we'd like, but a ready supply of free cookies (because no matter how many people you hug, you can be in violation depending on just who is paying attention just when, etc., and then you're required to bake free cookies), but how would that be undesirable for most? It would certainly be undesirable for me. I neither want to hug, be hugged, nor to bake cookies. But I may well be in the minority...
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 19:17:59 GMT
That's inconsistent, and it might result in not as many hugs as we'd like, but a ready supply of free cookies (because no matter how many people you hug, you can be in violation depending on just who is paying attention just when, etc., and then you're required to bake free cookies), but how would that be undesirable for most? It would certainly be undesirable for me. I neither want to hug, be hugged, nor to bake cookies. But I may well be in the minority... Would it be undesirable to you because it's inconsistent, though?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 19:47:49 GMT
It would certainly be undesirable for me. I neither want to hug, be hugged, nor to bake cookies. But I may well be in the minority... Would it be undesirable to you because it's inconsistent, though? In some part. But mostly because I'm not a hugging sort of a person, or a cooking sort of a person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 19:59:29 GMT
I'm arguing that not having a consistent system of morals that is systematically enforced would produce a result that was undesirable for most. What would the argument be for that? Say that someone had a set of moral stances, based on their views of the moral goodness of affection, codified into law, that said: (1) Everyone is required to hug at least four but not more than six different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. (2) Everyone is required to hug at least seven but not more than nine different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. That's inconsistent, and it might result in not as many hugs as we'd like, but a ready supply of free cookies (because no matter how many people you hug, you can be in violation depending on just who is paying attention just when, etc., and then you're required to bake free cookies), but how would that be undesirable for most? The scenario that you've presented isn't analogous to mine. Mainly because your scenario involves a compulsion to do something to or for others, whereas mine mainly concerns restrictions upon one's freedom to impose upon others. I'm arguing that laws should be created to force people to do unsolicited nice things for each other, I'm advocating that people shouldn't have the right to endanger others in order to further their own aspirations. Secondly, even in that scenario, it would still be undesirable to have inconsistent standards, because in that scenario nobody would know what they were supposed to be doing, and the determining factor concerning whether you were required to bake cookies would be arbitrary. In terms of a law that prevents others from endangering others, it's even more desirable to have a consistent standard, so that everyone has access to the same level of justice.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 20:49:11 GMT
What would the argument be for that? Say that someone had a set of moral stances, based on their views of the moral goodness of affection, codified into law, that said: (1) Everyone is required to hug at least four but not more than six different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. (2) Everyone is required to hug at least seven but not more than nine different strangers per month. The penalty for disobeying this law is that you will be required to bake a sheet of cookies and pass them out for free on the street. That's inconsistent, and it might result in not as many hugs as we'd like, but a ready supply of free cookies (because no matter how many people you hug, you can be in violation depending on just who is paying attention just when, etc., and then you're required to bake free cookies), but how would that be undesirable for most? The scenario that you've presented isn't analogous to mine. And indeed, that's not at all what I was shooting for. What I presented was simply an inconsistent set of laws based on the lawmaker's moral views. Your argument wasn't simply that more people would desire consistent laws, regardless of what the laws were. Your argument (at least as you presented it) was that if (inconsistent) laws (rooted in inconsistent morality) obtain, " it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak." If you're simply arguing that people would prefer consistent laws/morality to inconsistent laws/morality, what would that matter? It would have no practical upshot beyond that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2018 0:15:58 GMT
The scenario that you've presented isn't analogous to mine. And indeed, that's not at all what I was shooting for. What I presented was simply an inconsistent set of laws based on the lawmaker's moral views. Your argument wasn't simply that more people would desire consistent laws, regardless of what the laws were. Your argument (at least as you presented it) was that if (inconsistent) laws (rooted in inconsistent morality) obtain, " it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak." If you're simply arguing that people would prefer consistent laws/morality to inconsistent laws/morality, what would that matter? It would have no practical upshot beyond that. Yes, but everyone would get on board with the idea that you can't just be thrown under the bus (in some metaphorical sense which equates to whatever the person subjectively finds harmful) in order to serve someone else's purposes, whereas not everyone would want to hug or be hugged. I am certain that inconsistent laws which were subject to the caprice of whomever was observing at the time would not be popular, because then people would not know what was expected of them at all times. When are you going to get on to the subject of antinatalism. I have limited patience for what you're doing here.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 10, 2018 1:21:32 GMT
And indeed, that's not at all what I was shooting for. What I presented was simply an inconsistent set of laws based on the lawmaker's moral views. Your argument wasn't simply that more people would desire consistent laws, regardless of what the laws were. Your argument (at least as you presented it) was that if (inconsistent) laws (rooted in inconsistent morality) obtain, " it will have results that will not be good for the majority of the population, as the strong prey on the weak." If you're simply arguing that people would prefer consistent laws/morality to inconsistent laws/morality, what would that matter? It would have no practical upshot beyond that. Yes, but everyone would get on board with the idea that you can't just be thrown under the bus (in some metaphorical sense which equates to whatever the person subjectively finds harmful) in order to serve someone else's purposes, whereas not everyone would want to hug or be hugged. I am certain that inconsistent laws which were subject to the caprice of whomever was observing at the time would not be popular, because then people would not know what was expected of them at all times. When are you going to get on to the subject of antinatalism. I have limited patience for what you're doing here. What I'm doing is showing the many problems with every step of your reasoning. I can see why you'd have little patience for that, which is probably why you start ignoring it after a while and prefer to just go back on the telemarketing script (your normal antinatalism rhetoric).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2018 2:08:01 GMT
Yes, but everyone would get on board with the idea that you can't just be thrown under the bus (in some metaphorical sense which equates to whatever the person subjectively finds harmful) in order to serve someone else's purposes, whereas not everyone would want to hug or be hugged. I am certain that inconsistent laws which were subject to the caprice of whomever was observing at the time would not be popular, because then people would not know what was expected of them at all times. When are you going to get on to the subject of antinatalism. I have limited patience for what you're doing here. What I'm doing is showing the many problems with every step of your reasoning. I can see why you'd have little patience for that, which is probably why you start ignoring it after a while and prefer to just go back on the telemarketing script (your normal antinatalism rhetoric). You haven't shown any problems with antinatalism, because whenever I try to steer the topic towards antinatalism, you go off on another tangent which is usually not relevant to the subject, whilst also ignoring the majority of whatever post to which you're responding. Whilst morality is a subjective construct, it's a tried and tested principle that people don't like to have their wellbeing recklessly gambled with in order to further the ends of other people. Societies in which this happens as a matter of normal affairs (excepting procreation) tend to be the most dysfunctional ones. I'm not trying to convince 'God' to stop the universe, I'm trying to convince humans. Therefore I don't have to prove that antinatalism is a fundamental truth of nature, nor have I ever set out to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 10, 2018 11:46:07 GMT
What I'm doing is showing the many problems with every step of your reasoning. I can see why you'd have little patience for that, which is probably why you start ignoring it after a while and prefer to just go back on the telemarketing script (your normal antinatalism rhetoric). You haven't shown any problems with antinatalism, So your view that, for example, legislatively codifying moral stances that aren't systematic or that aren't consistent would lead to an undesirable result where the weak are being preyed upon doesn't have anything to do with your antinatalist views? Lets try this instead. What would be your first step (just stick with the first step--that is, a first premise, because I'll just cut off anything past that in a reply anyway) in supporting antinatalism, and where you're attempting to present a first premise that you think I'd agree with. So start with something simple that you figure will be noncontroversial (basically a la Russell's "start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating"--let's see if you can start with something simple that I'd agree with)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 0:22:08 GMT
You haven't shown any problems with antinatalism, So your view that, for example, legislatively codifying moral stances that aren't systematic or that aren't consistent would lead to an undesirable result where the weak are being preyed upon doesn't have anything to do with your antinatalist views? Lets try this instead. What would be your first step (just stick with the first step--that is, a first premise, because I'll just cut off anything past that in a reply anyway) in supporting antinatalism, and where you're attempting to present a first premise that you think I'd agree with. So start with something simple that you figure will be noncontroversial (basically a la Russell's "start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating"--let's see if you can start with something simple that I'd agree with) My first premise is that non-existent entities do not have needs or desires to be served, but living beings can be harmed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 11, 2018 11:54:02 GMT
So your view that, for example, legislatively codifying moral stances that aren't systematic or that aren't consistent would lead to an undesirable result where the weak are being preyed upon doesn't have anything to do with your antinatalist views? Lets try this instead. What would be your first step (just stick with the first step--that is, a first premise, because I'll just cut off anything past that in a reply anyway) in supporting antinatalism, and where you're attempting to present a first premise that you think I'd agree with. So start with something simple that you figure will be noncontroversial (basically a la Russell's "start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating"--let's see if you can start with something simple that I'd agree with) My first premise is that non-existent entities do not have needs or desires to be served, but living beings can be harmed. That's good--I agree with that much. What's the next step?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 0:41:15 GMT
My first premise is that non-existent entities do not have needs or desires to be served, but living beings can be harmed. That's good--I agree with that much. What's the next step? Procreation can never be rationally justified by appealing to the needs/interests/desires of someone who doesn't yet exist. Therefore, assuming that the birth is planned, it can only be done to serve the interests of people already existing, but with most of the risk falling on someone whose needs/interests/desires did not justify the action and who could not consent.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 12, 2018 10:55:24 GMT
That's good--I agree with that much. What's the next step? Procreation can never be rationally justified by appealing to the needs/interests/desires of someone who doesn't yet exist. Therefore, assuming that the birth is planned, it can only be done to serve the interests of people already existing, but with most of the risk falling on someone whose needs/interests/desires did not justify the action and who could not consent. Right, so that step is a big problem, because "X can not be rationally justified" is never a true statement, for any x. This is because, a fortiori, rationality and justification are noncognitive. So "X can be rationally justified" is never a true statement either. (I'm using "noncognitive" in the sense of philosophical noncognitivism, by the way. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism)Aside from that, with any statement of the form, "S is doing y for H interests," we can only know what H is via asking S. H could be anything conceivable, and S can't be wrong in their answer re H. In other words, we can't deduce what H must be, we can't say, "No, you're really doing y for G interests," etc. This is because "Doing y for H interests" is about how S is thinking about y. You could simply be referring to H as an entity here, and then he making a possessive statement (who do the interests belong to?), but that would be irrelevant to why S is doing y, which is still about how they're thinking about it. Next, the idea of risk quantification isn't supportable (re "most of the risk" ). And re "someone whose needs/desires did not justify or who did not consent," let's say that's a fact. Well, if so, it has zero ethical (or moral) implication, because you can never derive any ought from any is. So there are a bunch of problems with each of those ideas.
|
|