back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:35 pm

phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You're not the only person in the world phyllo, it's that simple.

Again, you speak false to power, I speak truth to power.

I have a moral obligation to spread the lesser of two evils.

You say that consent violation is good (false to power) I say that it's bad (truth to power)

I'd be more evil if I was like you, rather than like me.

I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you're victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.

We need more intelligence in this world, not counter intelligence.

What about my consent being violated by you?

Didn't expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?

So we're violating each other's consent, right?

My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.
What should I do KT?

I don't have him or anyone on 'foe' so this thing popped up on my screen. It has my name all over it and a load of false statements.
You're not the only person in the world phyllo, it's that simple.
Yeah, I know that.
You say that consent violation is good (false to power)...
I never said that.

I think that 'existence' doesn't violate consent and inanimate objects don't violate consent. And the majority of times when people can be seen as violating consent, it's not even a moral issue. (Like when when I want a new car for $10 and the dealer won't sell it to me for less than $25000.)

Sure, there are moral situations of consent violation, but you don't even deal with that in this discussion. You're almost entirely focused on dumb shit.
I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you're victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.
I'm only a victim within the context of your bizarre morality.
What about my consent being violated by you?

Didn't expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?

So we're violating each other's consent, right?
Right. Iambig's conflicting goods.

But you don't deal with that at all.
My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.
Sigh. Existence isn't alive. Existence doesn't 'know' or 'care' or have the 'capacity to act' or 'allow/not allow'.

Therefore existence can't be 'evil' in any meaningful sense of the word.


If I say, I didn't want that, I'm saying that it violates my consent. AGAIN!! You are insisting on anthropomorphising consent, whereas, I am not; existence doesn't need to be alive or sentient to "I didn't want that" to people, also meaning, "existence violated my consent", "existence is morally wrong"

You have refused to admit that your insistence that I leave ILP is as bad, you think it is good, thus you argued that consent violation is good. I think it's bad that we BOTH don't get what we want, you think it's only bad if YOU don't get what you want. Read your own posts! Now you're talking about reporting me? Big time victimhood card here when all I'm doing is using clean, non ad hom logic.

I am doing something about it, I'm naming it, that's the first step towards accomplishing something. You refuse to name it, you absolutely refuse to admit that existence is morally bad, objectively so. You're also projecting on me, you're the one not doing anything about it, same with iambiguous - you both refuse to name it.

I also have very strict codes of behavior to avoid no means yes relationships. I am doing something about it phyllo.

I'm also working on hyperdimensional mirror realities on spiritual planes of existence, which is very feasible.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:52 pm

I know what Ecmandu is on about here, but here is not the place for him/you Ecmandu to resolve that conflict within.. it is a personal journey, and a journey for one, that others cannot get a ticket for or even be privy to the route and final destination. There are no spectator tickets for such journeys.. they simply do not exist.

It is something that cannot simply be wished away but worked through, but in the meantime, yes.. your consent/boundaries will constantly feel like their being violated.

He is not imagining it, though it is borne in imagination, and then becomes a reality that only that person can work through to resolve what is happening.

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent

This is the actual quote and it could be interpreted to mean as I thought so that the sidewalk violated your consent

I would on reflection say that it is your responsibility to look where you are going so if you do stub your toe it is no ones fault but your own
You went on to say that stubbing your toe is evil which is one of the most ridiculous things you have said on the forum but not the only one

You never engage with anyone but just carry on posting your nonsense and violating their consent by making them respond to it like I am now
Anyway keep on posting your nonsense but I do not have the mental energy required to keep responding to it ad infinitum so I am out of here


You're missing my whole argument !

If it is POSSIBLE!!! For consent to be violated in existence, existence is immoral. That doesn't mean that existence is an intelligent being, simply that it is currently, morally (from our internal evaluation) incorrect.

You want to anthropomorphise everything... thus refuting my argument, which is a really bad straw man.

We can have our consent violated by non sentience as well as sentience.

All we have to do is look inside and ask ourselves, "is this violating my consent?" If the answer is "yes", we know that existence is objectively immoral, even if it's not sentient.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:42 pm

If I say, I didn't want that, I'm saying that it violates my consent. AGAIN!! You are insisting on anthropomorphising consent, whereas, I am not; existence doesn't need to be alive or sentient to "I didn't want that" to people, also meaning, "existence violated my consent", "existence is morally wrong"
I'm not anthropomorphising anything.

Yeah, people don't get everything that they want in life. That's not immoral.
You have refused to admit that your insistence that I leave ILP is as bad, you think it is good, thus you argued that consent violation is good. I think it's bad that we BOTH don't get what we want, you think it's only bad if YOU don't get what you want.
Did you learn nothing from Iambig's constant talk about conflicting goods?

Seriously, how do conflicting goods get resolved in your objective 'consent violation' morality? (Aside from using hyperdimensional mirror realities)
Now you're talking about reporting me? Big time victimhood card here when all I'm doing is using clean, non ad hom logic.
I didn't say anything about reporting you. But technically calling me evil, dishonorable and comparing me to a psychopath are grounds for reporting you.
I am doing something about it, I'm naming it, that's the first step towards accomplishing something. You refuse to name it, you absolutely refuse to admit that existence is morally bad, objectively so. You're also projecting on me, you're the one not doing anything about it, same with iambiguous - you both refuse to name it.
After you are done naming it, people are still not going to get everything that they want.

One needs to learns to accept that fact and live with it. Calling existence 'evil' is counterproductive.

I know what Ecmandu is on about here, but here is not the place for him/you Ecmandu to resolve that conflict within.. it is a personal journey, and a journey for one, that others cannot get a ticket for or even be privy to the route and final destination. There are no spectator tickets for such journeys.. they simply do not exist.

It is something that cannot simply be wished away but worked through, but in the meantime, yes.. your consent/boundaries will constantly feel like their being violated.

He is not imagining it, though it is borne in imagination, and then becomes a reality that only that person can work through to resolve what is happening.
He can travel on that personal journey and stop acting like he is better than everyone. And he can stop calling people psychopaths and sociopaths.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:56 pm

I didn't call you a psychopath, I called uccisore a psychopath, and that I am guessing iambiguous is one as well.

I call them mutually exclusive consents, what iambiguous less accurately calls conflicting goods.

Why are you so offended by being called evil by default of the way existence currently works.

If someone calls me evil (a subset of evil existence) I'm not offended.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:13 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I didn't call you a psychopath, I called uccisore a psychopath, and that I am guessing iambiguous is one as well.

I call them mutually exclusive consents, what iambiguous less accurately calls conflicting goods.

Why are you so offended by being called evil by default of the way existence currently works.

If someone calls me evil (a subset of evil existence) I'm not offended.
Do you have any philosophy to post?

If not, then we can wrap this up.
Last edited by phyllo on Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby promethean75 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:37 pm

Hey yo you better wrap that shit up, E.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:46 pm

You're too afraid to say objective morality exists and that it disproves a good god right now.

You and iambiguous conflict on many levels ...

But this is where you two come together ...

Burying your heads in the sand.

Every post you make keeps getting refuted ...

All you seem to have left is, "this isn't philosophy"

My posts are the definition of true philosophy.

The light of truth scares you with its brilliance
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
I know what Ecmandu is on about here, but here is not the place for him/you Ecmandu to resolve that conflict within.. it is a personal journey, and a journey for one, that others cannot get a ticket for or even be privy to the route and final destination. There are no spectator tickets for such journeys.. they simply do not exist.

It is something that cannot simply be wished away but worked through, but in the meantime, yes.. your consent/boundaries will constantly feel like their being violated.

He is not imagining it, though it is borne in imagination, and then becomes a reality that only that person can work through to resolve what is happening.

He can travel on that personal journey and stop acting like he is better than everyone. And he can stop calling people psychopaths and sociopaths.

..a fair exchange.

Ecmandu! does that work for you?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:17 pm

MagsJ wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I know what Ecmandu is on about here, but here is not the place for him/you Ecmandu to resolve that conflict within.. it is a personal journey, and a journey for one, that others cannot get a ticket for or even be privy to the route and final destination. There are no spectator tickets for such journeys.. they simply do not exist.

It is something that cannot simply be wished away but worked through, but in the meantime, yes.. your consent/boundaries will constantly feel like their being violated.

He is not imagining it, though it is borne in imagination, and then becomes a reality that only that person can work through to resolve what is happening.

He can travel on that personal journey and stop acting like he is better than everyone. And he can stop calling people psychopaths and sociopaths.

..a fair exchange.

Ecmandu! does that work for you?


It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:43 pm

Ecmandu wrote:It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?

Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others' boundaries all round, goes a long way.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:02 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?

Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others' boundaries all round, goes a long way.


This is an interesting area.

It makes the species a better place for every person who names truth "existence is currently evil"

Just naming it, if nothing else, gives us more power for good, however slight it may be.

So the question here is "who is holding good boundaries?"

Me or the nay sayers?

I understand trying to please everyone, trust me, I do.

I'd be disrespecting phyllo and iambiguous to not teach this stuff, I'd be infantalizing them.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:38 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?

Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others' boundaries all round, goes a long way.


This is an interesting area.

It makes the species a better place for every person who names truth "existence is currently evil"

Just naming it, if nothing else, gives us more power for good, however slight it may be.

So the question here is "who is holding good boundaries?"

Me or the nay sayers?

I understand trying to please everyone, trust me, I do.

I'd be disrespecting phyllo and iambiguous to not teach this stuff, I'd be infantalizing them.


This is the most diplomatic way I can put it to phyllo and iambiguous...

I'm inviting you to a different dimension than you're currently in: you refused the invitation

Just don't pretend that you came to the party when you didn't.

At first, heightened intelligence is crushingly horrendous... but as time transpires with it, you'll find that obstacles wither away, and you enter a state of bliss that is rare ... maybe it doesn't more than make up for the struggle, but it is wonderful.

Those are my words to phyllo and iambiguous
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:46 pm

Ecmandu wrote:So the question here is "who is holding good boundaries?"
All parties can be failing to hold good boundaries.

I'd be disrespecting phyllo and iambiguous to not teach this stuff, I'd be infantalizing them.

Are you respecting yourself and your own boundaries when you try to teach this stuff (to them, to various individuals)? Are there not people who should be infantalized? Or better put, since that sounds like you are making them, or the hypothetical people, infantile: are there not people who are infantile, and when one interacts with them as if they are not, you are not holding good boundaries?

And, of course, it need not be infantile persons. It could simply be people who will judge or attack or belittle you or whatever, but who are not, in general, infantile or defensive or in denial or whatever.

When does exposing yourself to the memes and judgments and aggression or engaging with false discussion become a boundary issue for you?

Between us I mean this as something to mull over. Not as an opportunity for you to state that all is well in the republic of your soul and that you got this.

The internet make confident statements and denial so potentially facile.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:So the question here is "who is holding good boundaries?"
All parties can be failing to hold good boundaries.

I'd be disrespecting phyllo and iambiguous to not teach this stuff, I'd be infantalizing them.

Are you respecting yourself and your own boundaries when you try to teach this stuff (to them, to various individuals)? Are there not people who should be infantalized? Or better put, since that sounds like you are making them, or the hypothetical people, infantile: are there not people who are infantile, and when one interacts with them as if they are not, you are not holding good boundaries?

And, of course, it need not be infantile persons. It could simply be people who will judge or attack or belittle you or whatever, but who are not, in general, infantile or defensive or in denial or whatever.

When does exposing yourself to the memes and judgments and aggression or engaging with false discussion become a boundary issue for you?

Between us I mean this as something to mull over. Not as an opportunity for you to state that all is well in the republic of your soul and that you got this.

The internet make confident statements and denial so potentially facile.


Oh, I have a very simple answer for this:

Just as existence is currently evil, and thus, we being subsets of existence are also evil, there are means of the lesser of two evils.

The same is true for infantilism.

Yes, in my own right, I'm an infant, I don't deny this.

There is a vast chasm between people who name and people who sublimate and deny.

I gave the factual answer to the OP.

All iambiguous has done is complain about the factual answer to his question.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:18 am

Ecmandu wrote:
every sentient being when pressed is having their consent violated in some way which we all have in common as well

from this we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant fuck this shit ! To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place

How are you going to make the cosmos a better place when everyone is continually having their consent violated
Do you not see that consent violation is a necessary condition for existence which is why it cannot be eliminated

Avoid it by all means but you cannot be rid of it entirely while you are still alive
The only way to eliminate it is through death and ultimately through extinction
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:32 am

Ecmandu wrote:
I also have very strict codes of behavior to avoid no means yes relationships

I am also working on hyperdimensional mirror realities on spiritual planes of existence which is very feasible

I also avoid relationships regardless of whether they are yes - no or yes - yes relationships because I have precisely no interest in any of them
Mother Nature is working hard on trying to kill me on the physical plane of existence which is not only feasible but is actually going to happen
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:14 am

Ecmandu wrote:Oh, I have a very simple answer for this:

Just as existence is currently evil, and thus, we being subsets of existence are also evil, there are means of the lesser of two evils.

The same is true for infantilism.

Yes, in my own right, I'm an infant, I don't deny this.
You may not have taken my post to mean you were infantile or an infant, but to be clear, that is NOT what I was suggesting.

There is a vast chasm between people who name and people who sublimate and deny.
Sure, though I was thinking more about ongoing interaction with people.


All iambiguous has done is complain about the factual answer to his question.
it seems like he has done more than that: mocked, insulted, pretend responded, and perhaps responded to some degree. But in context with my post to you, is it a good idea to interact with people who will do the former things? Is there a limit? If so, what is it? Can it be harmful to you to continue?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:11 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?

Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others' boundaries all round, goes a long way.

Stop calling others out and labelling us and repeat-posting your concept in irrelevant threads. Thank you.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:32 pm

MagsJ wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:It's kinda fair. I mean, I'm not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.

Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?

Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others' boundaries all round, goes a long way.

Stop calling others out and labelling us and repeat-posting your concept in irrelevant threads. Thank you.


Iambiguous is ten times worse at this than me. The only reason it seems that I post on this so much is because I'm following iambiguous around, who posts at least ten times more than me on this topic. If I had the time, I'd do this for every thread he enters. I happen to have chose this one instead.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:47 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Oh, I have a very simple answer for this:

Just as existence is currently evil, and thus, we being subsets of existence are also evil, there are means of the lesser of two evils.

The same is true for infantilism.

Yes, in my own right, I'm an infant, I don't deny this.
You may not have taken my post to mean you were infantile or an infant, but to be clear, that is NOT what I was suggesting.

There is a vast chasm between people who name and people who sublimate and deny.
Sure, though I was thinking more about ongoing interaction with people.


All iambiguous has done is complain about the factual answer to his question.
it seems like he has done more than that: mocked, insulted, pretend responded, and perhaps responded to some degree. But in context with my post to you, is it a good idea to interact with people who will do the former things? Is there a limit? If so, what is it? Can it be harmful to you to continue?


I've had to acquire a very thick skin in a world where the mundanity of evil is so ever present.

My adaptive strategy? Live in truth.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:57 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Stop calling others out and labelling us and repeat-posting your concept in irrelevant threads. Thank you.


Iambiguous is ten times worse at this than me. The only reason it seems that I post on this so much is because I'm following iambiguous around, who posts at least ten times more than me on this topic. If I had the time, I'd do this for every thread he enters. I happen to have chose this one instead.

You do not have a choice in the matter.. if you cannot move a discussion along, then leave the discussion.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:01 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Stop calling others out and labelling us and repeat-posting your concept in irrelevant threads. Thank you.


Iambiguous is ten times worse at this than me. The only reason it seems that I post on this so much is because I'm following iambiguous around, who posts at least ten times more than me on this topic. If I had the time, I'd do this for every thread he enters. I happen to have chose this one instead.

You do not have a choice in the matter.. if you cannot move a discussion along, then leave the discussion.


Why the double standard, for someone everyone on ILP considers a worse offender of your charge against me than me?

That's moving a conversation along. I'm curious why the double standard.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:33 pm

Really? You really have to ask? Re-read yesterday's posts.. they hold the answer.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18293
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:55 pm

MagsJ wrote:Really? You really have to ask? Re-read yesterday's posts.. they hold the answer.


Well, as they say, don't mess with moderators or bartenders.

I think the reason for the double standard is that I'm speaking the truth, truth is radical.

Nobody believes iambiguous, his posts aren't radical
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:22 am

"Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible"
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.

In this article I will discuss this argument from moral disagreement and present what I think is the most serious problem for moral relativism: that we cannot understand what it could mean for moral truths to be relative. And since we have no idea what it could mean, moral relativism cannot be a good explanation of the fact of deep and enduring moral disagreement – nor can moral relativism be supported by any other kind of reasoning. So if moral disagreement is evidence against the objectivity of moral truth, it can only be evidence for moral nihilism: the idea that there are no moral truths.


Well, if you really want to know of one possible meaning for morality being thought of as relative, just follow the news from day to day.

For all practical purposes, conflicting goods come tumbling down out of every newscast. And while moral nihilists such as myself have concocted an intellectual contraption to explain one possible reason for this, where is the argument able to explain why none of this tumult is really necessary at all?

Even with regard to moral relativism itself different folks have different strokes. Philosophical, political, religious. What it "means" is merely another aspect of the fundamental problem embedded in a No God world.

My own point is precisely that existentially the evidence is all around us if one wishes to conclude that moral nihilism is a reasonable point of view.

All I have ever required here myself is that we settle on a particular context in which value judgments precipitate conflicting behaviors that precipitate all manner of consequences embraced by some and rejected by others.

Tell us your own rendition of the "moral truth" here and defend it by providing us with the evidence it takes to convince all rational men and women to embrace it in turn.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users