<Snipped quote by Meta>
*tilts head*
What's wrong with space?
Nothing. I'm just too used to it.
Meta Member
Dawn
- Last Seen: 14 hrs ago
- Joined: 10 yrs ago
- Posts: 7331 (1.99 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Meta 10 yrs ago
-
Latest 10 profile visitors:
-
Most recent →
Kimberly,
Server,
Memory,
Scrawl Banditta,
Nimda,
System,
Not a Sayan,
Yatagarasu,
SkyeOfStars,
Extra
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
Nothing. I'm just too used to it.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
*looks up*
What?
Space. This clearly.
@Bishop
I agree that it affects our actions, but my point has always been that it has no logical foundation. There is nothing to base the concept of "morality" on, and therefore it is a baseless concept. We both agree that people perceive it to exist but there is no physical (or other equally real plane, if you want to go down that road) groundwork for its appearance in the perception in human consciousness.
Laws are real; I never disputed that. Rights, on the other hand, are considered inherent factors of existence that all people have. To quote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” This is entirely reliant on the assumption that these rights have a spritual foundation. If you'd want to argue that rights are government given or man-made, fine, but it doesn't help your case. They're just as real as laws, a human structure of societal ranking and treatment.
Words are real because we can write them. They have a very specific definition with all pieces defined based on a real, logical/physical concept. Morals, on the other hand, do not have a logical or physical basis in a naturalistic point of view. Yeah, we can agree that they exist, but there's no impact resulting from that.
To restate that, if a concept cannot be defined by breaking it down into its parts, and its parts into their own parts, if we cannot eventually break it down into a concrete definition with a logical or physical basis for all of those parts, then the concept is abstract and therefore totally meaningless because we can redefine it as we please. Here is an example: We know that calculus works because you can break it down into algebraic pieces that we know work. How do we know those work? It's because we have mathematical axioms, foundations of all of math that are combined in unique ways to perform mathematical formulas. Take 2^3, for instance. That can be broken down into 2*2*2, which can be broken down into (2+2) + (2+2), which can be broken down further into 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Its a concrete concept. It's real. Now let's say, for instance, we have an imaginary math concept labeled 3@4. At some point 3@4 has 2x as one of its parts—x can be defined as anything by the performer of the formula. This means that 3@4 is abstract: it holds no real meaning. Even if we all agree "Oh, 3@4 is 92," there is no reason to actually believe that because it cannot be broken down into mathematical axioms. You get stuck where someone can make it whatever they want to and there's no way to disprove that. There isn't a logical or physical basis for 3@4 in the same way you won't find a logical or physical basis for morality in a naturalistic worldview.
I never claimed that you did—rather, I believed you didn't. By a naturalistic outlook, anarchy becomes the logically superior form of government (in terms of objective foundation) because it requires the fewest assumptions, compromises, agreements, subjective beliefs, forcing anyone to do anything (not that forcing people to abide by a set of rules can be considered "wrong"). Any governmental structure requires consensus among people about how things ought to be run, which is wrought with inconsistencies, disagreements, and a lack of basis for the ideas presented. For example, a democracy assumes "rule by the majority is the way society ought to be structured." There is no foundation for what society "ought" to be other than personal opinion. It's abstract. If the goal is to make society as "better" as possible, then it runs into the issue of "better" being the same as 3@4; it has no concrete definition. The most money? The most happiness? Why ought society be run this way? Even if it is the most money, why is this inherently better than a poor society? In all, it requires people to force their view of an ideal society upon the entirety of said society. If you have a concrete definition of an ideal society and what it ought to be that is unanimously agreed upon by 100% of individuals involved, then perhaps you have an equivalent system, because now the number of assumptions and other previously mentioned factors have been reduced to zero. But (other than the severe unlikelihood of vast quantities of people agreeing and continuing agree), it runs into the issue of the assumption that people will continue to abide by this set of rules, which introduces one more than anarchy. Anarchy requires zero assumptions, agreements, or any other factor that a structured society is in need of. Rather, it is totally based on an action/consequence style of social interaction. Can I go murder someone? Sure, but I'll probably also be killed. I'm not saying that society ought to be an anarchy or even that anarchy is a subjectively superior style of non-governance in a naturalistic outlook. What I am saying is that, judging by logical foundations, anarchy requires the fewest non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance.
I agree that it affects our actions, but my point has always been that it has no logical foundation. There is nothing to base the concept of "morality" on, and therefore it is a baseless concept. We both agree that people perceive it to exist but there is no physical (or other equally real plane, if you want to go down that road) groundwork for its appearance in the perception in human consciousness.
Laws are real; I never disputed that. Rights, on the other hand, are considered inherent factors of existence that all people have. To quote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” This is entirely reliant on the assumption that these rights have a spritual foundation. If you'd want to argue that rights are government given or man-made, fine, but it doesn't help your case. They're just as real as laws, a human structure of societal ranking and treatment.
Words are real because we can write them. They have a very specific definition with all pieces defined based on a real, logical/physical concept. Morals, on the other hand, do not have a logical or physical basis in a naturalistic point of view. Yeah, we can agree that they exist, but there's no impact resulting from that.
To restate that, if a concept cannot be defined by breaking it down into its parts, and its parts into their own parts, if we cannot eventually break it down into a concrete definition with a logical or physical basis for all of those parts, then the concept is abstract and therefore totally meaningless because we can redefine it as we please. Here is an example: We know that calculus works because you can break it down into algebraic pieces that we know work. How do we know those work? It's because we have mathematical axioms, foundations of all of math that are combined in unique ways to perform mathematical formulas. Take 2^3, for instance. That can be broken down into 2*2*2, which can be broken down into (2+2) + (2+2), which can be broken down further into 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Its a concrete concept. It's real. Now let's say, for instance, we have an imaginary math concept labeled 3@4. At some point 3@4 has 2x as one of its parts—x can be defined as anything by the performer of the formula. This means that 3@4 is abstract: it holds no real meaning. Even if we all agree "Oh, 3@4 is 92," there is no reason to actually believe that because it cannot be broken down into mathematical axioms. You get stuck where someone can make it whatever they want to and there's no way to disprove that. There isn't a logical or physical basis for 3@4 in the same way you won't find a logical or physical basis for morality in a naturalistic worldview.
I never claimed that you did—rather, I believed you didn't. By a naturalistic outlook, anarchy becomes the logically superior form of government (in terms of objective foundation) because it requires the fewest assumptions, compromises, agreements, subjective beliefs, forcing anyone to do anything (not that forcing people to abide by a set of rules can be considered "wrong"). Any governmental structure requires consensus among people about how things ought to be run, which is wrought with inconsistencies, disagreements, and a lack of basis for the ideas presented. For example, a democracy assumes "rule by the majority is the way society ought to be structured." There is no foundation for what society "ought" to be other than personal opinion. It's abstract. If the goal is to make society as "better" as possible, then it runs into the issue of "better" being the same as 3@4; it has no concrete definition. The most money? The most happiness? Why ought society be run this way? Even if it is the most money, why is this inherently better than a poor society? In all, it requires people to force their view of an ideal society upon the entirety of said society. If you have a concrete definition of an ideal society and what it ought to be that is unanimously agreed upon by 100% of individuals involved, then perhaps you have an equivalent system, because now the number of assumptions and other previously mentioned factors have been reduced to zero. But (other than the severe unlikelihood of vast quantities of people agreeing and continuing agree), it runs into the issue of the assumption that people will continue to abide by this set of rules, which introduces one more than anarchy. Anarchy requires zero assumptions, agreements, or any other factor that a structured society is in need of. Rather, it is totally based on an action/consequence style of social interaction. Can I go murder someone? Sure, but I'll probably also be killed. I'm not saying that society ought to be an anarchy or even that anarchy is a subjectively superior style of non-governance in a naturalistic outlook. What I am saying is that, judging by logical foundations, anarchy requires the fewest non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
*begins tinkering with my guantlet on my arm*
*Stands, looking into space*
I was hoping to never see this again.
@Bishop
I said that.
Rights also don't exist.
This entire first paragraph is a restatement of
You just admitted to this, which is a fine position to take, but it also requires accepting the fact that an anarchy is an ideal society because people determine for themselves the cost of their own actions and execute responses accordingly. You keep throwing abstract terms out there such as "coexist," when these are totally meaningless when broken down into concrete components. It is not possible to construct a logical argument without breaking down a concept into its parts.
I disagree with this paragraph. Beauty can be taught as well; studies into neurological development show that most of what we perceive in a subjective manner is generated and established well into youth. Our idea of beauty and other abstract concepts is directly correlated to our experiences in the past and how we grew up. In the same way you can reject the idea of beauty, you can reject the idea of morality. If I grew up being taught that watching movies was evil, I very well could decide when I was older that I disagreed with that and make my own decision regarding the ethics of doing so. Every subjective concept is the exact same as any other, a structure formed uniquely by the human mind and the way it perceives reality around it, be it morality, beauty, fun, music, etc. You admit that they do not exist on a physical level but assign it some abstract value when, under your assumptions, it is not even real on some abstract level because all it is comprised of is neurons firing in specific ways that results in behavior that may be perceived as similar to the behavior of other individuals who assign the term "moral" to it. But in all, there is no foundation for the belief that the concept is real on any level or any reason any human should follow what is defined as moral guidelines. In fact, unless there is some real, tangible or even intangible foundation for defining exactly what morality is, there is no basis for the claim that it exists in the first place.
I never equated morality to laws; read more closely. I stated that having laws at all is illogical under the assumption that morality doesn't exist (or exists "subjectively," if you insist that it is possible) and that the logical conclusion is that an ideal society is an anarchy.
The problem is that you define "exist" as "what humans perceive as real," which is purely false. A schizophrenic may perceive an elephant to exist even if there is none in the room. The fact of the matter is that our perceptions and definitions do not define what reality is and no matter what we choose to believe, something that does not have a foundation in reality doesn't have any justification for its existence. Unless you have evidence that morality, beauty, or any other abstract concept exists beyond collections of people agreeing that it does, there is not a basis for the claim that any of them are real. A concept that does not extend beyond the brain is not real, and even if large collections of people claim that their perception of a concept is real, unless there is something that backs up their claim, they are incorrect. The closest to real any of these are to "real" is an agreement in mankind's perception that they are, which is totally meaningless and has no impact on the physical world around us. If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
I said that.
Rights also don't exist.
This entire first paragraph is a restatement of
Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute.
You just admitted to this, which is a fine position to take, but it also requires accepting the fact that an anarchy is an ideal society because people determine for themselves the cost of their own actions and execute responses accordingly. You keep throwing abstract terms out there such as "coexist," when these are totally meaningless when broken down into concrete components. It is not possible to construct a logical argument without breaking down a concept into its parts.
I disagree with this paragraph. Beauty can be taught as well; studies into neurological development show that most of what we perceive in a subjective manner is generated and established well into youth. Our idea of beauty and other abstract concepts is directly correlated to our experiences in the past and how we grew up. In the same way you can reject the idea of beauty, you can reject the idea of morality. If I grew up being taught that watching movies was evil, I very well could decide when I was older that I disagreed with that and make my own decision regarding the ethics of doing so. Every subjective concept is the exact same as any other, a structure formed uniquely by the human mind and the way it perceives reality around it, be it morality, beauty, fun, music, etc. You admit that they do not exist on a physical level but assign it some abstract value when, under your assumptions, it is not even real on some abstract level because all it is comprised of is neurons firing in specific ways that results in behavior that may be perceived as similar to the behavior of other individuals who assign the term "moral" to it. But in all, there is no foundation for the belief that the concept is real on any level or any reason any human should follow what is defined as moral guidelines. In fact, unless there is some real, tangible or even intangible foundation for defining exactly what morality is, there is no basis for the claim that it exists in the first place.
I never equated morality to laws; read more closely. I stated that having laws at all is illogical under the assumption that morality doesn't exist (or exists "subjectively," if you insist that it is possible) and that the logical conclusion is that an ideal society is an anarchy.
The problem is that you define "exist" as "what humans perceive as real," which is purely false. A schizophrenic may perceive an elephant to exist even if there is none in the room. The fact of the matter is that our perceptions and definitions do not define what reality is and no matter what we choose to believe, something that does not have a foundation in reality doesn't have any justification for its existence. Unless you have evidence that morality, beauty, or any other abstract concept exists beyond collections of people agreeing that it does, there is not a basis for the claim that any of them are real. A concept that does not extend beyond the brain is not real, and even if large collections of people claim that their perception of a concept is real, unless there is something that backs up their claim, they are incorrect. The closest to real any of these are to "real" is an agreement in mankind's perception that they are, which is totally meaningless and has no impact on the physical world around us. If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
<Snipped quote by Bishop>
Dude he's a super-christian. Arguing from a natural perspective will get you literally nowhere.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
Truer words might never have been spoken. I can literally FEEL the crash I'm going to have. I'm either going to have the deepest sleep of my life or sleep for 3 minute and not need to again for sixteen years.
No, it'll get you somewhere. I can live with someone taking the naturalistic approach, but I will demand that it be on an all or nothing level.
Enjoy that. I'll be here.
@Bishop
No, I disagree. My inaction led to a situation where he could not escape being exposed. And it isn't that suicide is inevitable. It isn't done to him, but done by him. How is it my responsibility if someone chooses to off themselves? The answer is that it's not. There's no moral dilemma here; the person couldn't handle the weight of his own choices and made a bad choice, something totally unrelated to me.
You can live for good even in an isolated environment. Our responsibilities as humans extend far beyond just interpersonal communications. You do bring up an interesting question, however: at what point does inaction become evil? Again, I argue that it never does; rather the intentions of the person committing the action or inaction are what constitutes his state of good or evil. If I pass a homeless person on the street, it would be good to give him food. Would it be evil to pass him by? No, probably not. Is someone starving and begging me in my excess for a moresel to eat and I refuse? Yes, I probably would be committing evil.
I'm glad you said that—we can get to the heart of the problem. Either good and evil are objective or they do not exist at all. Instead of going about this in the usual emotional way, consider it from the perspective of beauty, something we can agree if subjective. In my eyes, modern art is, for the most part, stupid and pointless and lacks the meaning that people claim it has. Is my view on beauty objectively superior to any other? Even someone who thinks all art is beautiful or ugly? No, not at all. And if I considered all art beautiful and I made something hideous and called it beauty, I wouldn't get arrested for it (this will be important later). However, the only reason that we can have these subjective and differing views of beauty is necause beauty is not an inherent or intrinsic quality of anything on Earth. It is entirely a figment of the human mind and only has any existence because humans, for the most part, agree that it exists. But you cannot claim that beauty exists in reality beyond the human concept of it, unless you manage to find some beauty quark that physicists aren't aware of. Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief. If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority. And, in that same vein, it is illogical to face any consequence for doing so because A) I haven't done anything wrong and B) Because if we base good and evil on our perspective of it rather than the fact that it doesn't exist, I still haven't done anything wrong if I believe that murder isn't evil. We don't arrest people for creative ugly art, in the same way we shouldn't arrest people for doing anything they believe is good or not evil. Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute. If you desire to take that stance, very well—it's the road that many high profile naturalists end up down, and we can agree that our axioms differ. However, if you wish to argue that society ought to be some way that takes good and evil into consideration, then the stance falls apart under inspection of its parts.
I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."
No, I disagree. My inaction led to a situation where he could not escape being exposed. And it isn't that suicide is inevitable. It isn't done to him, but done by him. How is it my responsibility if someone chooses to off themselves? The answer is that it's not. There's no moral dilemma here; the person couldn't handle the weight of his own choices and made a bad choice, something totally unrelated to me.
You can live for good even in an isolated environment. Our responsibilities as humans extend far beyond just interpersonal communications. You do bring up an interesting question, however: at what point does inaction become evil? Again, I argue that it never does; rather the intentions of the person committing the action or inaction are what constitutes his state of good or evil. If I pass a homeless person on the street, it would be good to give him food. Would it be evil to pass him by? No, probably not. Is someone starving and begging me in my excess for a moresel to eat and I refuse? Yes, I probably would be committing evil.
I'm glad you said that—we can get to the heart of the problem. Either good and evil are objective or they do not exist at all. Instead of going about this in the usual emotional way, consider it from the perspective of beauty, something we can agree if subjective. In my eyes, modern art is, for the most part, stupid and pointless and lacks the meaning that people claim it has. Is my view on beauty objectively superior to any other? Even someone who thinks all art is beautiful or ugly? No, not at all. And if I considered all art beautiful and I made something hideous and called it beauty, I wouldn't get arrested for it (this will be important later). However, the only reason that we can have these subjective and differing views of beauty is necause beauty is not an inherent or intrinsic quality of anything on Earth. It is entirely a figment of the human mind and only has any existence because humans, for the most part, agree that it exists. But you cannot claim that beauty exists in reality beyond the human concept of it, unless you manage to find some beauty quark that physicists aren't aware of. Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief. If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority. And, in that same vein, it is illogical to face any consequence for doing so because A) I haven't done anything wrong and B) Because if we base good and evil on our perspective of it rather than the fact that it doesn't exist, I still haven't done anything wrong if I believe that murder isn't evil. We don't arrest people for creative ugly art, in the same way we shouldn't arrest people for doing anything they believe is good or not evil. Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute. If you desire to take that stance, very well—it's the road that many high profile naturalists end up down, and we can agree that our axioms differ. However, if you wish to argue that society ought to be some way that takes good and evil into consideration, then the stance falls apart under inspection of its parts.
I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."
@Bishop
Self-righteousness isn't necessarily pride or moral superiority. Rather, it's the belief that the focus of your own life is on yourself. Someone could be extremely humble, yet still fall to something as common as lying, in the interest of self preservation or comfort. Or, they steal something in the interest of having more for themselves. The fact that you only attack my use of the term "self-righteousness" is a straw man and not particularly important to the argument as a whole.
Easy. I manage my time and help them with whatever I have left after fulfilling my own responsibilities. If I can finish my project tomorrow with plenty of time to spare, I help them as much as I can in the meantime. If I'm struggling to finish it myself, I refuse. The idea isn't that you can't do anything for yourself, but rather that making your life about self-interest is the source of evil. The main problem with the scenario that you presented is that it assumes that one action is inherently superior to another. Rather, it is only the intention of humans that can be good or evil. There's a reason killing isn't evil in and of itself—people kill all the time in war or self defense. Instead, it is killing out of evil intentions that makes it murder instead of the act itself.
Self-righteousness isn't necessarily pride or moral superiority. Rather, it's the belief that the focus of your own life is on yourself. Someone could be extremely humble, yet still fall to something as common as lying, in the interest of self preservation or comfort. Or, they steal something in the interest of having more for themselves. The fact that you only attack my use of the term "self-righteousness" is a straw man and not particularly important to the argument as a whole.
Easy. I manage my time and help them with whatever I have left after fulfilling my own responsibilities. If I can finish my project tomorrow with plenty of time to spare, I help them as much as I can in the meantime. If I'm struggling to finish it myself, I refuse. The idea isn't that you can't do anything for yourself, but rather that making your life about self-interest is the source of evil. The main problem with the scenario that you presented is that it assumes that one action is inherently superior to another. Rather, it is only the intention of humans that can be good or evil. There's a reason killing isn't evil in and of itself—people kill all the time in war or self defense. Instead, it is killing out of evil intentions that makes it murder instead of the act itself.
That is... so basically every human is born evil because every human, at one point in their life has done something selfish, however small and minuscule it may have been. But that is just the way of the world, so in one word the world is evil?
That is a very broad categorization of evil. You can't just call the way nature works evil. Putting yourself before others is survival at its basics. So survival is evil?
Yes, actually. Committing evil just once makes a person evil and deserving of Hell. To answer your question, by nature, yes, everyone is evil.
Because evil is broad. That was a false equivocation—survival is not the same concept as selfishness, though there may be overlap. The idea is that people attribute to themselves unjust and unwarranted qualities that induce an inflated idea of self. I.e. The issue is not the fact that they care about self, but rather the fact that they care about self righteousness.
Not towards evil per say, but towards selfishness and putting self interest above the need of others which is only natural. You see it in nature all the time, survival of the fittest. But there are those who constantly ruin others without getting any material value out of it besides happiness. They are the true evil.
Focus on the self is the pinnacle of evil—all of it stems from there. Pride, hate, theft, laziness, uncontrolled anger, etc.
© 2007-2026