|
JVNO posted:You realize when people dismiss others as spouting ‘philosophy 101’, they’re usually doing it from a position of greater knowledge, not less. Mocking people quoting canned lines from an intro philosophy course doesn’t imply ignorance of philosophy is a virtue. Quite the opposite. I'm dismissing you because nothing you've said contributes to the original point I was making which had nothing to do with the context of the word "objective" when it comes to ethics and you still don't understand what I was originally saying because you want to play semantic games. My point was that it DOESN'T MATTER if such a thing exists as an objective good. To win against the right you have to claim that the values you have ARE objectively good because their entire point is that there is no objective morality so it's OK to be selfish, to hate who you want, etc. My point was that they win on that turf.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
JVNO posted:'Educated people tend to be sadbrains' is not an argument for ignorance unless you've already embraced a hedonistic ethos. Why isn't it? If there is no ultimate moral truth behind anything, why should you not embrace that, since people who don't go all philosophy major feel better about themselves and generally do better materially? Like, to what benefit is it to live unhappily when you can just ignore it and die the same as everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You dishonest tool. That is not at all what's at stake when acknowledging rights and morality are social constructs. gently caress you for conflating a belief in subjectivity with embracing the holocaust. Nah, gently caress you for claiming there is no such thing as an objective good and getting mad when I turn it around on you. If there's no such thing as objective ethics then anything can be good or bad as a person believes. Also, I never claimed to be an expert on philosophy but I know philosophy 101 trash when I see it. You're the one who keeps wanting to play games about the word "objective."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:
If morality can vary between societies, this how can it be objective?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I'm dismissing you because nothing you've said contributes to the original point I was making which had nothing to do with the context of the word "objective" when it comes to ethics and you still don't understand what I was originally saying because you want to play semantic games. No I'm pretty sure that when they make moral arguments they really actually like trying to argue that their position is objectively good via natural rights or god or whatever. Huzanko posted:If there's no such thing as objective ethics then anything can be good or bad as a person believes. Yes, it can. Why does that present any obstacle to you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:If morality can vary between societies, this how can it be objective? Pretty much every society on earth considers being fed, clothed, educated, and healthy to be good. Hence, it's moral to provide things for these people. If a society disagrees then they're wrong. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Pretty much every society on earth considers being fed, clothed, educated, and healthy to be good. If that was true we would live on a very different planet. The entire point is that they don't think that without a lot of qualifiers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, it can. Why does that present any obstacle to you? Because otherwise what are we even arguing? "I have the right to kill you and take your things", "I think you shouldn't do this, but I have no objective measure to -stab stab stab-" In this instance it's because Right Wingers can very easily just say "I'm right" and if the best we can do is go "well morality is subjective" it instantly looks like a fudge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Things that are subjective still exist. You don't need a 100% universal truth that exists separate from human society in order to enforce a social norm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:People should save the life they can without unreasonable harm to themselves or others. Unreasonable cost? What is reasonable is normative and in the US those things are quite clearly defined in society and culture speaking from a hegemonic standpoint. Take for instance the contrast between lacking social safety nets and food stamps. Or mandatory emergency room treatments but no help in preventing things that might put you there. Or finally, the contrast between opressively high tuition costs and generous scholarships. What is reasonable is relative and often ideological. You say stopping death is a self-justifying moral imperative. Ok, lets accept that. But clearly the US is already arguably doing things to stop people from going without food, heatlhcare and education that so what more do you want? How do you justify it from a moral standpoint? The system you've established can already be argued to be met by US as a society today.  Huzanko posted:That's what I believe. Beliefs are good even when they're not subject to beep-boop rationality. This is not something I can be talked out of with Philosophy 101. gently caress off. You say that and yet the implication I get when reading your posts is that you distinctively did not understand the actual implications of the trolley problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because otherwise what are we evening arguing? "I have the right to kill you and take your things", "I think you shouldn't do this, but I have no objective measure to -stab stab stab-" Because there is a difference between saying "Actually no it's written in the universe that that's wrong" and making an impassioned argument and appeal that it's incorrect based purely on your subjective convictions. One makes you look like a lunatic and is fighting on already extremely occupied theological ground, while I think the other might work a bit better. Where's that really good kropotkin bit about if people are inherently predatory then it's necessary to take them out of a system that encourages it? I think that's a good example of subjective arguments against objectivist bollocks. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I would argue that for all their differences historically and continued differences today between socialists/anarchist/communists/whatever, there are a lot of people throughout history who have espoused beautiful visions of the future and yet we still live in this one. I think part of the problem in selling the leftist vision, at least in the US, is that it has a lot of baggage it needs to somehow shed thanks to all the power-hungry sociopaths who have achieved power through the promise of utopia only to deliver yet another dystopia. That and the average American doesn't grasp the idea of how personal property works in a socialist/communist society. The other side of it is convincing people that capitalism is bad even when combined with a social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If that was true we would live on a very different planet. The entire point is that they don't think that without a lot of qualifiers. I still don't think you understand my point, at all. Individually people consider those things to be good for themselves. Those things are objectively good for everyone. The fact that people don't believe this is the problem. Here's the definition of the word objective: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Here's the definition of the word moral: "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." I am claiming that objectively those things I mentioned are good for society and individuals within that society. Societies do better - even capitalist societies - when people are healthy, happy, educated, and have a higher standard of living. So, I am saying that it is objectively moral to provide those things to people and that if a person's morality does not agree with that then it's hosed up and needs to change. It's pretty clear that you don't want to have a discussion about anything I originally said that spawned this, but you were just triggered by my use of the word "objective." I completely understand that there isn't such a thing as objective morality within a philosophical context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because otherwise what are we even arguing? "I have the right to kill you and take your things", "I think you shouldn't do this, but I have no objective measure to -stab stab stab-" Yep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I still don't think you understand my point, at all. And to that I will again argue that "it's good for the individual therefore it's good for everyone" is an incredibly right wing idea, capitalist societies don't do well when everyone's healthy happy educated and has a high standard of living because if that were true they wouldn't be capitalist. Capitalist societies do well when capital has effective control of the workers and can use the threat of poverty and suffering to compel them to hand over their labour, because the point of capitalist societies is that the people who support them are either members of the group who do well under that system, or wish they were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Absolute/objective morality vs relative/subjective morality is actually a longstanding debate with a boatload of really good arguments back and forth over the years, so if you think the answer is just obviously one way or the other you're probably being an idiot, in the same way that the guy who used to email my entire department long rants "disproving thermodynamics" was being an idiot. Except you don't write like you're schizophrenic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
That is what everyone is trying to get Huzanko to realize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And to that I will again argue that "it's good for the individual therefore it's good for everyone" is an incredibly right wing idea, capitalist societies don't do well when everyone's healthy happy educated and has a high standard of living because if that were true they wouldn't be capitalist. Capitalist societies do well when capital has effective control of the workers because the point of capitalist societies is that the people who support them are either members of the group who do well under that system, or wish they were. You're intentionally misinterpreting me and no it isn't. If its good for me to have an education, healthcare, etc. then it follows that it would be good for everyone to have that. It's also beneficial for society as a whole if more people have those things. That's a left-wing position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:If its good for me to have an education, healthcare, etc. then it follows that it would be good for everyone to have that. Sing it with me everybody: ~*inductive reasoning is invaliiiid*~ I actually agree with that statement, but I acknowledge that it is an assumption
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That is what everyone is trying to get Huzanko to realize. No, they just want to have a semantic debate and prove someone wrong. I already know that there isn't objective morality as a concept. My original point was that going down that path with right-wingers and using facts and figures to prove that people deserve human rights is pointless, and you should claim that your position is objectively and absolutely moral. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please stop claiming that "there is no such thing as objective morality" is a difficult thing to process. That's not even the point I have been trying to argue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Are we really doing the first principles recursion dance in here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Are we really doing the first principles recursion dance in here? Yep! Goon Danton posted:There's no such thing as being too pedantic, friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:You're intentionally misinterpreting me and no it isn't. No it isn't. Because by that logic it's better if we have more rich people. A proper left wing equivalent must focus on the people who don't have those things. It would be phrased, probably, as, "better nobody be rich than some." It requires a fundamental change of the power relationship between ruler and ruled, and to that end an agrarian communal society where centralised healthcare is nonexistant by virtue of not having a government to organize it, is still a left wing victory because you have eliminated the power dynamic. Yes people die a whole lot faster but perhaps they live happier before that. I dunno I don't really have a reference point. Because otherwise you end up with the facile idea that increasing the number of billionaires in the world by taking some from the multibillionaires is a left wing victory. When clearly it wouldn't be. You can argue for something in the middle but I think it could do with a different term. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I don't agree with you Huzako, but I think I get what you are aiming at, but it is more of a tactical suggestion rather than a strictly "strategic" one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It requires a fundamental change of the power relationship between ruler and ruled, and to that end an agrarian communal society where centralised healthcare is nonexistant by virtue of not having a government to organize it, is still a left wing victory because you have eliminated the power dynamic. Yes people die a whole lot faster but perhaps they live happier before that. I dunno I don't really have a reference point. Are you arguing that going back to feuding clan groups where there is, as you mention, no healthcare would be a moral victory for the left?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:To win against the right you have to claim that the values you have ARE objectively good because their entire point is that there is no objective morality so it's OK to be selfish, to hate who you want, etc. My point was that they win on that turf. 'My opponents are intellectually dishonest, so that gives me a right to do so as well.' This sort of 'Well we have to do it because they're worse' partisan bullshit that allows both Republicans and Democrats to ignore sexual abuse on their own team while viciously attacking the other. 'It's moral when I do it!' thinking, which ironically runs completely counter to what you're actually trying to argue. And no, you don't win on their turf when you play the objective morality game, because they've been playing that game a lot longer than you. They can point to religion for deity granted 'objective ethics', or to any number of tortured bullshit libertarian ethos like Objectivism that relies on 'natural rights'. Josef bugman posted:Why isn't it? If there is no ultimate moral truth behind anything, why should you not embrace that, since people who don't go all philosophy major feel better about themselves and generally do better materially? Like, to what benefit is it to live unhappily when you can just ignore it and die the same as everyone else? I said that if you adopted hedonism as your ultimate value, then yes, ignorance would be a virtue. However I value things other than hedonism, so 'maximizing pleasure' is not my sole goal in life. If anything, you're dismantling your own argument here: You can only say that 'ignorance is objectively good' if you've agreed to the premise that 'hedonism is moral', and can also prove 'knowledge impedes pleasure'. But there's no way to prove hedonism ought to be the value you choose. If instead I chose 'knowledge' as my ultimate value, then happiness be damned, ignorance is immoral. Huzanko posted:Nah, gently caress you for claiming there is no such thing as an objective good and getting mad when I turn it around on you. No, gently caress your lazy, inflammatory comment for conflating intellectual honesty about the nature of rights and morality with outright endorsement of the holocaust. And clearly other people care about rigour and honesty when it comes to defining things as objective. This isn't a word game, and your anti-intellectual dismissal of an entire field (philosophy) is the type of tripe we typically mock conservatives (and 'internet rationals') for. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I don't agree with you Huzako, but I think I get what you are aiming at, but it is more of a tactical suggestion rather than a strictly "strategic" one. I don't really get what's disagreeable about "All humans are inherently valuable and deserve human rights, an education, to be healthy, and happy and I shouldn't have to prove it with facts and figures." I didn't want to get into a big loving philosophy debate with my original post since it's not relevant to what I was trying to get across.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Pretty much every society on earth considers being fed, clothed, educated, and healthy to be good. Hence, it's moral to provide things for these people. If a society disagrees then they're wrong. Isn't that essentially saying that if enough people share an opinion it becomes an fact?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
JVNO posted:'My opponents are intellectually dishonest, so that gives me a right to do so as well.' Actually, I like philosophy and reading philosophy texts. However, when I make a post about how to argue with the right and that I think we should make more claims to the moral high-ground, I don't expect a bunch of bored dipshits to come in to dogpile me over the use of the word "objective." Also, my point still stands that if nothing is objectively good or bad then anything can be depending on a person's personal beliefs. What's your issue with that since that's your point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because otherwise what are we even arguing? "I have the right to kill you and take your things", "I think you shouldn't do this, but I have no objective measure to -stab stab stab-" Even right wingers believe in relative morality even if they don't realize it. A lot of them support things like the death penalty and torture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Isn't that essentially saying that if enough people share an opinion it becomes an fact? It's saying its axiomatic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Are you arguing that going back to feuding clan groups where there is, as you mention, no healthcare would be a moral victory for the left? I mean anarcho primitivism is a thing and while it's definitely not my preferred solution I can't just write it off as not being compatible with the fundamentals of... marxist/anarchist/leftist/whatever, thought about power relationships. It argues that civilization is founded on domination of others, I don't really agree but it's still trying to address that really fundamental, nitty gritty basis of what I think is proper intersectional leftist critique which is that power and dominion over others is abhorrent. They trend pretty hippy dippy lovey dovey about the whole thing but I think they still recognize that pivotal truth. I would consider myself more at home with them than I would someone who thinks that making more bourgeoisie would help because it's redistributative. E: well I guess that counts as a firm win for the forces of subjectivism. Rip objectivist argued so hard he died. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Actually, I like philosophy and reading philosophy texts. However, when I make a post about how to argue with the right and that I think we should make more claims to the moral high-ground, I don't expect a bunch of bored dipshits to come in to dogpile me over the use of the word "objective." God forbid some of us demand a little rigour and intellectual honesty in a thread that's ostensibly about two things: Mocking idiot wannabe rationals, and discussing how better to counter their bullshit. Huzanko posted:What's your issue with that since that's your point? My issue is when you conflate 'believing morality is subjective' with 'endorsing the holocaust as moral' like you did above, and imply that's a stance either myself or OwlFancier (or any 'morality is subjective' defenders here) hold. I can both believe that things like morality and rights are social constructs, and believe that the holocaust is an absolute abomination. I just don't pretend I'm deriving that moral framework from the ether or the universe or discovering it in nature. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Huzanko requesting a permaban seems like a rather extreme reaction to this. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
JVNO posted:And no, you don't win on their turf when you play the objective morality game, because they've been playing that game a lot longer than you. They can point to religion for deity granted 'objective ethics', or to any number of tortured bullshit libertarian ethos like Objectivism that relies on 'natural rights'. So can we "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..." bit from the bible gives that. Or are you arguing that there are no moral arguments that could be used by Communism or Anarchism in various holy books. JVNO posted:I said that if you adopted hedonism as your ultimate value, then yes, ignorance would be a virtue. However I value things other than hedonism, so 'maximizing pleasure' is not my sole goal in life. If anything, you're dismantling your own argument here: You can only say that 'ignorance is objectively good' if you've agreed to the premise that 'hedonism is moral', and can also prove 'knowledge impedes pleasure'. But there's no way to prove hedonism ought to be the value you choose. If instead I chose 'knowledge' as my ultimate value, then happiness be damned, ignorance is immoral. I don't think so, you are saying that "I value things other than hedonism" I am asking "why do you do so". If we take a purely materialist view of the world (which you seem to believe but do correct me if I am wrong on this) then why would you chose "knowledge" as an ultimate value? What advantage could it give? If you chose it then that is fine, but how would you make a materialist argument FOR your position? OwlFancier posted:I would consider myself more at home with them than I would someone who thinks that making more bourgeoisie would help because it's redistributative. Yes you can, because it would instantly result in a worse life for everyone left alive. Like would "threads" be considered a leftist film because at the end everyone is living in the same shithole? Like, if you had to choose in this trolley problem a world in which a load of people had become wealthier, as in people have access to free healthcare, free schooling, food, water a place to live etc. All that good stuff but there are still people left to have more than others. And the world you described, where there are no governments and everyone is back to living in small clan groups, there is no healthcare no generally available food etc. Which would you choose? If you can see this Huzanko I am very sorry! OwlFancier posted:E: well I guess that counts as a firm win for the forces of subjectivism. Rip objectivist argued so hard he died. How can you call this a win. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes you can, because it would instantly result in a worse life for everyone left alive. Like would "threads" be considered a leftist film because at the end everyone is living in the same shithole? I would consider myself to not have enough information to decide, because I literally don't have any idea what a life free of domination would be like. I have some suspicions but I don't know how I would possibly test it. I have a hunch that a society without a lot of modern things that increase material quality of life yet possessing a durable ideological commitment to cooperation over domination, might be much better in the long run than one that never addressed that problem. This isn't just turning back the clock, mind you. We've had hierarchy in one form or another for a lot longer than we've had capitalism. This is something different. I don't know which I'd choose to be honest, because it would be a blind choice either way. I suspect knowing me I might pick the primitivist option at the last second just because I couldn't contain my curiosity. Goon Danton posted:Huzanko requesting a permaban seems like a rather extreme reaction to this. The fun part is consequentially speaking it's our fault
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Well on a different, slightly related note, here's a decent video about Alt-Right tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So can we "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..." bit from the bible gives that. Or are you arguing that there are no moral arguments that could be used by Communism or Anarchism in various holy books. I believe when you dwell in the realm of objective rights and morality, you've put yourself at a disadvantage. You've already ceded the possibility that rights and morality can be determined by some deity or natural law- the same people often appeal to when they say, for instance, 'homosexuality is unnatural therefore immoral'. I'm not saying there are no 'objective morality' arguments for Communism or Anarchism, but folks arguing from the point of view of religion, libertarianism, or objectivism have a severe home team advantage here. Josef bugman posted:I don't think so, you are saying that "I value things other than hedonism" I am asking "why do you do so". If we take a purely materialist view of the world (which you seem to believe but do correct me if I am wrong on this) then why would you chose "knowledge" as an ultimate value? What advantage could it give? If you chose it then that is fine, but how would you make a materialist argument FOR your position? 'Why do you do so' is a complicated question, and one for which I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer. As I categorically reject free will, the reason 'why' I prefer a specific value or state of affairs is an extremely complicated result of biopsychosocial factors. I don't quite know what else you expect me to say here, but I think it's a good demonstration that at the end of the day you can keep asking 'why' until you reach a point where a person just has to admit 'I like _____ because I like _____'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I believe when you dwell in the realm of objective rights and morality, you've put yourself at a disadvantage. You've already ceded the possibility that rights and morality can be determined by some deity or natural law- the same people often appeal to when they say, for instance, 'homosexuality is unnatural therefore immoral'. I'm not saying there are no 'objective morality' arguments for Communism or Anarchism, but folks arguing from the point of view of religion, libertarianism, or objectivism have a severe home team advantage here. But you provide no reason for thinking this. You simply say "they have a home team advantage" to which the obvious rejoinder is "So? Do it anyway". Why do they have an advantage, because they do it more? JVNO posted:'Why do you do so' is a complicated question, and one for which I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer. As I disagree with notions of free will, the reason 'why' I prefer a specific value or state of affairs is an extremely complicated result of biopsychosocial factors. I don't quite know what else you expect me to say here, but I think it's a good demonstration that at the end of the day you can keep asking 'why' until you reach a point where a person just has to admit 'I like _____ because I like _____'. Then why should people listen to you if it boils down to the exact same thing that Huzanko was saying? "I don't know why I believe this" appears as an inherently weaker position than "I believe this because it is true". That and, if you have no basis for believing what you believe... why should I believe what you believe? OwlFancier posted:The fun part is consequentially speaking it's our fault Do you have any clue as to how to be kind to people? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Then why should people listen to you if it boils down to the exact same thing that Huzanko was saying? "I don't know why I believe this" appears as an inherently weaker position than "I believe this because it is true". That and, if you have no basis for believing what you believe... why should I believe what you believe? The same reason you believe anything else, you have no basis for that, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:57
|
|