|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 16, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Already explained to YOU directly
You missed my other point - if you know 100% that the murderer isn't going to murder again, how is putting him in jail any kind of defense?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 02:48 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:49, 16 Sep 2008.
|
@Ash:Quote:
You always say something like: "God has reasons" "We are not to judge/question God"
You're the one bringing religion up so deal with that phrase
@TA:Quote:
I explained this below. The results aren't 100% fact but they are assumed to be that from a human perspective.
You're claiming to have a god-mode view, so it's different.
And? It is true that I used a god-mode view, it's not different. I admit that it's still has human limitations, like anything else, not that you are God in this example. Of course it's not perfectly accurate since it's still limited by human knowledge and wisdom.
Quote:
Dude, I can't argue with you.
It's like I'm speaking another language. I say one thing and you misinterpret it and that requires another post and something gets lost in the translation and it just doesn't work.
And just because D&D uses this system doesn't make it good.
Maybe if there were elves on earth it might be slightly useful.
But applying it on earth where the only race that it seems to care about are humans, it's kind of hypocritical calling it objective, and also useless.
You really like to ignore what I say don't you? Here's what I said IN MY PREVIOUS POST about stupid usefulness:Quote:
Does it matter if it's "useful"? After all, humans prefer to be greedy etc.. so I can understand if they do not "like" it. Humans would EXPLOIT different species (and even THEMSELVES, wars, etc) if they have the force to do so -- that doesn't mean they aren't evil. Who cares if it's useful or not?
Objective morals have nothing to do with a society's needs or stuff like that. Morals that concern the NEEDS of a group/individual are SUBJECTIVE morals. Like I said, I don't even fall in the 'good' category but that doesn't mean the morals are flawed. Only subjective ones are "biased" towards the needs of the individual to satisfy him/her.
A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE OBJECTIVE WE SIMPLY DON'T "LIKE". Face it. That doesn't make them less objective though. We don't like that we can't create matter. But that's it. Face it. Accept it.
Quote:
By your morality system is it fine to destroy a painting, nature etc without being evil?
I already explained it. It's called greed. Greed is evil. Regardless of the freedom stuff I said. there is a lot more to being evil than just that freedom abolishing thing. Greed is another example. You want a definition? Look at a dictionary, look at some religions that use greed. Surely you don't expect ME to write entire book here right?
Quote:
Also how do you know about the complex issues of animal thoughts?
What about dogs for example. They are capable of choices and do not act 100% on instinct.
Thus they are not 100% neutral. But a dog killing for food because it was trained that way is 'innocent' in morality views.
Quote:
As long as we 'respect' fish we can kill them LOL
Seriously.
You know what? I refuse to respond to this as long as you keep being ignorant and don't even read what I write (about fish, see 2 posts ABOVE) and even point you to read (some religions or shinto etc)
Quote:
There are no ELVES OR TROLLS on earth. It's useless, and subjective.
I care if it's useless.
You care because you want a subjective view that satisfies your needs. I want to create matter too!
Quote:
Morals that concern the NEEDS of a group/individual are SUBJECTIVE morals.
what about
Quote:
You can measure what someone needs. You can also measure what someone only needs to make him 'better off' (we call it luxury), it's not bad in itself. It's bad when it comes at the expense of something else.
Quote:
There's also the thing called "greed", which is when you take more than you need
The first quote (that concern the NEEDS) meant more like what they WANT. And what they want can be measured, to a certain extent. On the other hand, what they need is different. "Needs" is not the same as "need", in english, which is why it caused confusion lol.
For example, when you say "the needs of that group" INCLUDES luxury and what they WANT.
When you say "I need food to survive" it's different because it doesn't include what you want, but what you NEED. Let us ignore the language flaws.
You don't need luxury although it's nice if it doesn't come at the expense of something.
Quote:
You've also dropped many of the more difficult points in this thread such as the drug addict, the vampire etc.
I think I actually explained the drug addict and the vampire lol. And you know what? Next time I won't even bother quoting myself. Have fun believing that I don't back up my claims. Here the drug addict from pages back. It did took some time for me to type, thanks for appreciating my effors!
Quote:
Quote:
-What if you give an addict a bunch of drugs?
If he wants, then you're most certainly not evil at all. Of course now you can argue that he is "out of his mind" or whatever -- that's hard to measure, since he can say the same. It depends on what we think WE are capable of making decisions, and they not. This is kinda confusing for an external viewer like e.g: an AI.
Quote:
Tell me something: if someone else comes at you and takes away from you all your stuff, saying that "it makes you addicted to them", are you going to feel comfortable? Is he good?
I'm sure you'll say: "You can't compare the two", but who are you to decide?. What about the computer? All electronic stuff? They make you addicted to them. What if someone decides to take them away from you because "you don't know what's good for you?" Do you feel comfortable? Why would YOU or society decide for a drug addict what he needs while YOU would not like someone else to decide for YOU?
Where do you draw the line? Who decides?
You know what? Why do I even bother replying if you ignore my posts? I waste my time here. Seriously.
Quote:
And I still don't see why a human has morally any more right to live than a bacteria.
Want to go in circles again? You asked the plant thing, I replied. You dropped that and went to bacteria, which is similar. Should I reply again?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You missed my other point - if you know 100% that the murderer isn't going to murder again, how is putting him in jail any kind of defense?
It isn't. I think you can forgive him for that, but he STILL is evil for what he has done. You can punish him for what he has done -- that won't make you good, but neither evil, simply NEUTRAL.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're the one bringing religion up so deal with that phrase
No, that means whatever I say about God you can say "God works in mysterious ways" or "We are not to judge God", is it just me or this is a pointless debate? How about you back up your claims with arguments?
I can as well say: "Because I say so"
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 03:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, that means whatever I say about God you can say "God works in mysterious ways" or "We are not to judge God", is it just me or this is a pointless debate? How about you back up your claims with arguments?
Honestly I don't know what you're talking about. If the Bible says that we should not question God, then you start up and question Him (thus it means you assume He exists) what kind of response do you want from me? To say something which is in contradiction to how the Bible describes God? Then what's the point? 
(of course you can just as well not talk about God at all )
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Do you think there's any point in debating with someone who follows the Bible blindly without any kind of thinking?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 03:34 PM |
|
|
I agree but the above is like saying "Microsoft is about food isn't it?" -- it's like it's off the point. For example, one can say "How can God know everything, if we assume He exists of course", the reply would be simply "Because He's omniscient". If you don't accept this then you don't even assume He exists properly (I mean the God in the Bible of course). So the discussion is pointless, since we need that assumption first (just for the sake of discussing)
"How can Microsoft sell software?"
"Because that's what it is about "
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 10:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can punish him for what he has done -- that won't make you good, but neither evil, simply NEUTRAL
So you wouldn't say that it would be good to punish him for his actions? Merely neutral?
Quote:
"How can Microsoft sell software?"
"Because that's what it is about "
No, it's about draining the blood of the working class and choking off smaller firms. M I doin it rite?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2008 11:13 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:14, 16 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
So you wouldn't say that it would be good to punish him for his actions? Merely neutral?
Look: if he will not kill anymore, he might as well ask for forgiveness. Of course if you are GOOD you will forgive him. But since you have a weird idea that God is a bastard when He forgives our sins (exact same thing there), then I don't think I can talk to you if you think that is "not good".
If you punish him then you're not good, merely neutral -- that is, you did NOT forgive him when he was HONEST (he has to be honest otherwise it fails, good people are not fools), but you are also not evil, since you punished his "freedom" since he also punished someone else's freedom. Justice is neutral. Love is good. Greed & selfishness is evil.
Please note that it is not black & white again: you can be neutral with this but good with something else. It's not a simple 0...1 scale (0-evil, 0.5-neutral, 1-good). Obviously I simplified it in a way or I would have to write an entire book
and lol at your Microsoft reply 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 12:51 AM |
|
|
Who says that he's asking for forgiveness? What if he's saying something like, "That guy had trillions of dollars that he was leaving to me. So I killed him. But I swear that it will take trillions of dollars to make me murder, and no one except for that guy has that much." What then? Should you punish him?
Justice is neutral? How's that? Why isn't justice good?
And do you want to get back into the self-interest argument?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 08:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I already explained it. It's called greed. Greed is evil. Regardless of the freedom stuff I said. there is a lot more to being evil than just that freedom abolishing thing. Greed is another example. You want a definition? Look at a dictionary, look at some religions that use greed. Surely you don't expect ME to write entire book here right?
What if you take only what you need from nature, but it involves destroying entire planets
It's not greed, it's not what you want, it's what you NEED which is measurable and objective.
Quote:
You know what? I refuse to respond to this as long as you keep being ignorant and don't even read what I write (about fish, see 2 posts ABOVE) and even point you to read (some religions or shinto etc)
Shinto isn't an objective morality system... It's entirely on humans.
Besides, you didn't say anything two posts above.
All you said was you basically can't explain why Jesus is evil in your morality system, made a snyde comment about me and mvass, and then talked about Shinto.
Quote:
You care because you want a subjective view that satisfies your needs. I want to create matter too!
What?
Subjective morality systems are real and useful to live our lives by. Christianity is one (well, the morals in Christianity). Shinto is another.
They are not impossible like creating matter.
OBJECTIVE morality systems are impossible to even have the slightest knowledge about, AND are useless.
Quote:
For example, when you say "the needs of that group" INCLUDES luxury and what they WANT.
No, actually, luxury isn't counted as a need.
My needs (food, water, oxygen, shelter etc.) do not involve luxuries.
It's not a language flaw.
But if you mean morals that concern what society WANTS are subjective, then that's fine.
But that brings us back to the start. What if a vampire doesn't want to kill, but it NEEDS to kill 100000 babies a day just to survive?
Quote:
You know what? Why do I even bother replying if you ignore my posts? I waste my time here. Seriously.
Sorry, this is my fault.
I had a post written about the drug addict thing but I didn't post it because we started talking about plants
Here is what I wrote:
Quote:
Tell me something: if someone else comes at you and takes away from you all your stuff, saying that "it makes you addicted to them", are you going to feel comfortable? Is he good?
I'm sure you'll say: "You can't compare the two", but who are you to decide?. What about the computer? All electronic stuff? They make you addicted to them. What if someone decides to take them away from you because "you don't know what's good for you?" Do you feel comfortable? Why would YOU or society decide for a drug addict what he needs while YOU would not like someone else to decide for YOU?
Where do you draw the line? Who decides?
Where did you get taking away stuff from?
No one is taking anything from the drug addict, you're GIVING him something which is completely different.
It's feeding an addiction.
Oh and by the way: chill out 
Quote:
Want to go in circles again? You asked the plant thing, I replied. You dropped that and went to bacteria, which is similar. Should I reply again?
If you reply with the same thing then you're going around in circles.
I just think that just because bacteria and plants are different life forms to animals doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
Obviously, you disagree, and think that something has to THINK in order to deserve to live.
I'll but in here:
Quote:
You can punish him for what he has done -- that won't make you good, but neither evil, simply NEUTRAL.
But by your definition, you're using your freedom to take away his freedom.
That makes you evil?
Who are you to punish him?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
What then? Should you punish him?
If he still is not sorry for what he did, then yes.
Quote:
Justice is neutral? How's that? Why isn't justice good?
If Justice is good, then God is above "good" which is something ridiculous and unnecessary. What about people that forgive their enemies if they are honest? How would you classify those? Above good? no such thing.
@TA:Quote:
What if you take only what you need from nature, but it involves destroying entire planets
It's not greed, it's not what you want, it's what you NEED which is measurable and objective.
No such thing. Of course by this logic, let's say the "Galaxy" (if we impersonate it) takes what it needs from the planets it's formed of. Nothing bad about that, as you can see, the Galaxy is still there. Or planet Earth "takes" from whatever it's made from (including humans).
Quote:
Shinto isn't an objective morality system... It's entirely on humans.
It's not. I don't even say anything about it, apart from the remark that it has SOME answers to your questions. I never said that my absolute morals are a religion lol. It's just that I am tired of answering questions that you ask deep which takes a long time to answer correctly -- if I rely on common sense and don't explain every detail (since it would take a while) you jump on the flaws and try to make me look stupid. That's why I point you out to SOME other sources because frankly I'm tired of typing so much.
Or am I supposed now to also answer the meaning of life and all that stuff (because obviously, morals are based on life and thinking etc.)??? Geez.
Quote:
Subjective morality systems are real and useful to live our lives by. Christianity is one (well, the morals in Christianity). Shinto is another.
They are not impossible like creating matter.
OBJECTIVE morality systems are impossible to even have the slightest knowledge about, AND are useless.
No what I meant is this:
"Hey, I just did something. Was it bad? Dunno, but to PLEASE MYSELF and my thinking, I'll say it was good!"
That's why it's subjective. Because they are CREATED to serve the needs of humans and make them "feel good" about it. They are CREATED for that purpose, not discovered by analysis from a neutral POV (like I did). They are CREATED with that goal in mind. Is that so hard to understand?
Quote:
No, actually, luxury isn't counted as a need.
My needs (food, water, oxygen, shelter etc.) do not involve luxuries.
It's not a language flaw.
Like I said previously, English is kinda flawed here. Needs is not a direct relationship with Need (or shall I say "require").
Needs is more like "what I want" while need is more like "what I require".
Quote:
But that brings us back to the start. What if a vampire doesn't want to kill, but it NEEDS to kill 100000 babies a day just to survive?
This example is better than associating babies with plants because you can't find flaws in it. The vampire should understand that the babies are similar to him, so if he lives, rationally, a lot of others "similar" die. It's a dilemma but if he is truly good he would sacrifice himself.
Quote:
Where did you get taking away stuff from?
No one is taking anything from the drug addict, you're GIVING him something which is completely different.
It's feeding an addiction.
So if you go to the store, no one should give you a computer, since they say "it's bad for you" and "you don't know what's good for you?"
put yourself in their shoes
Quote:
I just think that just because bacteria and plants are different life forms to animals doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
Obviously, you disagree, and think that something has to THINK in order to deserve to live.
No. Plants deserve to live. Deforestation, for example, is a form of greed, for profit. It's bad. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this.
Eating an apple is not bad, even though it "deserves" to live. I explained this previously anyway but I think we're just agreeing to disagree.
Quote:
But by your definition, you're using your freedom to take away his freedom.
That makes you evil?
It's not a simple conditional statement lol. It's called defense. There are various things in here that I have explained, also regarding thoughts. For example, a mindless zombie that kills is not "evil" because it is innocent -- it doesn't even know what its doing. Even though, by what YOU UNDERSTOOD with the above thing means I classify him as evil? No.
If you truly think that I don't want to explain this in detail, take a look here. Please note that system is not the SAME as mine, but it SHOULD give you an idea of HOW MUCH i have to detail if you want a non-flawed system. I thought using common sense is more than enough for me to avoid writing so much.
Quote:
Who are you to punish him?
Doesn't matter who I am as long as the punishment is fair for what he has done. (that is, you simply "stop" him from doing it, not decide if he deserves to be tortured or not! that will make you kinda evil)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If he still is not sorry for what he did, then yes.
Why, if you know 100% that he's not going to murder again?
Quote:
What about people that forgive their enemies if they are honest?
They're good too. There's more than one way to be good.
Quote:
It's a dilemma but if he is truly good he would sacrifice himself.
Maybe by your definition of good...
And do you really want to start a discussion about greed and profit?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why, if you know 100% that he's not going to murder again?
Do you have any idea of the word "justice"?
Quote:
They're good too. There's more than one way to be good.
Of course, but it's like "above good" which is ridiculous. Why should we complicated ourselves?
Quote:
Maybe by your definition of good...
And do you really want to start a discussion about greed and profit?
Sorry but you have to understand that I HAVE to talk about greed & profit if you ask deep questions about morality. Or next time I mention "life" should I also explain 42?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No such thing. Of course by this logic, let's say the "Galaxy" (if we impersonate it) takes what it needs from the planets it's formed of. Nothing bad about that, as you can see, the Galaxy is still there. Or planet Earth "takes" from whatever it's made from (including humans).
Obviously I didn't mean taking entire planets
You know what I mean... exaggeration
Quote:
It's not. I don't even say anything about it, apart from the remark that it has SOME answers to your questions. I never said that my absolute morals are a religion lol. It's just that I am tired of answering questions that you ask deep which takes a long time to answer correctly -- if I rely on common sense and don't explain every detail (since it would take a while) you jump on the flaws and try to make me look stupid. That's why I point you out to SOME other sources because frankly I'm tired of typing so much.
Or am I supposed now to also answer the meaning of life and all that stuff (because obviously, morals are based on life and thinking etc.)??? Geez.
I just thought it would be reasonable to explain how your morality system works that you're advocating in situations where, if we followed your guidelines, it would be ridiculous/absurd.
If using common sense means completely disregarding all the guidelines that you posted, then what's the point of even having those few rules that are so often broken and exceptions made?
Quote:
That's why it's subjective. Because they are CREATED to serve the needs of humans and make them "feel good" about it. They are CREATED for that purpose, not discovered by analysis from a neutral POV (like I did). They are CREATED with that goal in mind. Is that so hard to understand?
No, but what's your point?
You were saying that a subjective morality system is impossible. I'm saying it's not.
You then go on about how a subjective morality system is subjective and then say "Is that so hard to understand?"
...
no... it's not, I never disagreed with it. But what's that got to do with creating matter
Quote:
This example is better than associating babies with plants because you can't find flaws in it. The vampire should understand that the babies are similar to him, so if he lives, rationally, a lot of others "similar" die. It's a dilemma but if he is truly good he would sacrifice himself.
Then maybe all carnivores should sacrifice themselves.
I think that it would be racist to stop at animals however, and all of a sudden all animals should sacrifice themselves
I think it is ridiculous to say that from a god-view life form A is more worthy of life than life form B, but hey, that's where we disagree.
Of course the bible states that humans are made in gods image as well so that adds to the dilemma
Quote:
Eating an apple is not bad, even though it "deserves" to live. I explained this previously anyway but I think we're just agreeing to disagree.
Why though? Why is it ok for us to eat an apple but not vampire to eat a baby 
I thought you didn't favour anyone...
Saying that it's not as worthy because it doesn't "think", from a god-view, is just the same as saying that cripples aren't as worthy because they can't "walk". It's just an action that some life forms can do, and others can't.
I'm not being hypocritical here, just for clarification. I think objectively I'm being evil if I kill a spider or whatever.
I just don't care.
I feel I can live a far more productive and useful and beneficial life to society by following subjective morals such as curing disease is not evil (even though it kills microorganisms)
But we disagree here because you think that "usefulness" is not important
Quote:
So if you go to the store, no one should give you a computer, since they say "it's bad for you" and "you don't know what's good for you?"
put yourself in their shoes
No, that's different again
That's buying, not getting given something for no reason
Stop changing my example!
Quote:
It's not a simple conditional statement lol. It's called defense.
Defense from what?
You're not defending yourself from him because in your example he's not going to do anything evil in future.
You're just punishing him for no reason
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 03:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I just thought it would be reasonable to explain how your morality system works that you're advocating in situations where, if we followed your guidelines, it would be ridiculous/absurd.
If using common sense means completely disregarding all the guidelines that you posted, then what's the point of even having those few rules that are so often broken and exceptions made?
You're not getting me. I have explained BRIEFLY the moral system (and note: i don't find it ridiculous in any place) and you keep pumping questions that, for me, to answer them properly, will need a very long detailed description.
Common sense is not used to "break" the laws -- STOP THINKING ABOUT THEM AS A SYSTEM OF LAWS, it's more like a system of conditionals (hard to explain but if you know programming you'll understand). Common sense is used to EXTRAPOLATE missing "details" that I have omitted. I have omitted them because it would take a whole lot to explain them.
Quote:
No, but what's your point?
You were saying that a subjective morality system is impossible. I'm saying it's not.
You then go on about how a subjective morality system is subjective and then say "Is that so hard to understand?"
Normally I should have laughed at this but writing so much only for you to get the OPPOSITE of what I said is just over the point.
"I was saying that a subjective morality system is impossible" -- WHERE DO YOU GET THIS FROM? From MY posts? I said that people can CREATE subjective morals EXTREMELY EASY to satisfy their needs (make the distinction between "requirements" and "wants" like I said previously). Thus what you said is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what I said. I'm not sure if I should even continue.
Objective morals are DISCOVERED. They require a lot of analysis from neutral POVs obviously, like God mode, or anything similar. Of course they are not 100% objective because not even science itself is 100% objective. Subjective morals are CREATED.
You can have as many subjective morals as you want, if you want. It's easy. But there is only one objective morals.
Quote:
Then maybe all carnivores should sacrifice themselves.
I think that it would be racist to stop at animals however, and all of a sudden all animals should sacrifice themselves
Yeah go back to the plant argument which we discussed already. Why do I reply if in the next page you'll repeat that "I think that..." same claim?
And animals, like I said, are "innocent" but obviously my posts are meant for the Space Monkeys, not for people on this forum, to read. Or so it seems.
Quote:
I'm not being hypocritical here, just for clarification. I think objectively I'm being evil if I kill a spider or whatever.
I just don't care.
I feel I can live a far more productive and useful and beneficial life to society by following subjective morals such as curing disease is not evil (even though it kills microorganisms)
"Important" and "usefulness" are subjective of course. What I meant was that usefulness has nothing to do with objective morals. (you also forgot to mention in the disease that it is an "aggressor", plus the fact that it is similar to plants).
What one prefers or not is subjective. I prefer objective morals. I'm being subjective -- but that doesn't make the morals subjective of course. Objective morals don't FORCE anyone to do something, that's the LAW's job, which is subjective based on society models. Objective morals are more like philosophy, they put you to think.
So now that I got your point and maybe you have nothing to add, my point was not to show that objective morals FORCE us to be a certain way, morals don't FORCE anyone -- that's the law's job. What I meant was that they exist, and while we can't possibly know them 100%, we can know probably more than 90% of it with analysis etc... (since of course, everything is relative, thus subjective, but to different degrees, even science). That was my whole point.
Philosophy is most times "impractical". I find it interesting. I even find pure mathematics interesting.
Quote:
No, that's different again
That's buying, not getting given something for no reason
Stop changing my example!
Ah, so selling drugs is ok by you?
Quote:
Defense from what?
You're not defending yourself from him because in your example he's not going to do anything evil in future.
You're just punishing him for no reason
"No reason"? It's called justice, for what he has done. It's the DEFENSE of the person that died, but has not the opportunity of doing it. I already explained this countless times. Can we drop it, the defense thing i mean?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you have any idea of the word "justice"?
Yes, but since you're saying that it's not "good", I wonder if you do.
Quote:
Sorry but you have to understand that I HAVE to talk about greed & profit if you ask deep questions about morality.
All right, then. Your only argument (that I've seen) against rational self-interest is that it breeds hate. But it is irrational self-interest that breeds hate, and, too some extent, irrational self-interest is a contradiction in terms. Self-interest does not create hate. Hate is contrary to rational self-interest.
Quote:
"Important" and "usefulness" are subjective of course.
Of course people think that different things are useful, but everybody likes to feel good - therefore that is useful.
Quote:
It's called justice, for what he has done. It's the DEFENSE of the person that died
Justice is defense of the person that died?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All right, then. Your only argument (that I've seen) against rational self-interest is that it breeds hate. But it is irrational self-interest that breeds hate, and, too some extent, irrational self-interest is a contradiction in terms. Self-interest does not create hate. Hate is contrary to rational self-interest.
It doesn't matter why I am against self-interest. It only matters that we have it defined (greed & profit). If we have it defined, we can use them in morals. I don't even attempt to go into that again, since you mentioned the stuff above COUNTLESS times at CH, listen I'm not someone who doesn't read what you write
Quote:
Of course people think that different things are useful, but everybody likes to feel good - therefore that is useful.
And what has this got to do with objective morals? That was my point.
Quote:
Justice is defense of the person that died?
That's justice. If you kill someone because he would kill later, then it's not justice, it's DEFENSE (for the would-be victim). Justice is different. Justice is mostly neutral, UNLESS the guy is NOT sorry for what he has done and is happy with what he has done. Justice doesn't really modify your good/evil status, mainly it depends on what you have been before.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It only matters that we have it defined (greed & profit).
And that you call it evil - a classification that I take issue with.
Quote:
And what has this got to do with objective morals?
Because it's objective that other people want to feel good in some fashion.
Quote:
That's justice.
Umm... you can't really defend someone against something that's already happened. It's not going to do anyone much good to push someone off the railroad tracks when a train is coming if you're an hour too late.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2008 10:36 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:40, 17 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
And that you call it evil - a classification that I take issue with.
I explained why (even with the deforestation example).
Quote:
Because it's objective that other people want to feel good in some fashion.
I repeat: And what does that have to do with objective morals?
Quote:
Umm... you can't really defend someone against something that's already happened. It's not going to do anyone much good to push someone off the railroad tracks when a train is coming if you're an hour too late.
Alas you have to think "outside the box". And morals are not about HOW USEFUL your actions are gonna be (productive or whatever). How many times must I repeat this?
If you want something useful, look at the LAW. Period.
|
| |
|
|
