Random Stuff IV

[Elbereth she/her]

Wow, El, I need to finish the Silmarillion one of these days. I started it once and got about a quarter through and got distracted and never made my way back.

 

It's the sort of book that's easy to put down and never take back up again. I'm doing the same thing with the Book of Lost Tales right now, which is even worse. But it's worth it in the end. Once you get past Turin, you're good, basically. (I hated that chapter.)

There used to be this really great video series that kind of summarized the Silmarillion, called the Silmarillion for Noobs. But apparently the account died or something, because there's only two copies of videos left. Here's the first part, though, about Aragorn's ancestors. It's really great.

Hm, do I follow Kaymyth's example and simply steal Steris or do I ask who my LotR fit could be... eh let's do both.

Honestly I'd still put the LR as squarely a bad guy. Sure he didn’t want the world to be destroyed but that's a pretty logical conclusion for people that want to live themselves and he clearly put more effort into keeping himself in power than into making sure Ruin doesn't go free.

I will do yours as soon as I pick one for Venture, who is turning out to be surprisingly difficult.

Unrelated spoilers for HoA:

If Ruin and Preservation were preschoolers playing with Legos, Preservation would be the one who builds something and then says "Nobody touch it!" Ruin would be the one asking "Can I knock it down now? Now? How about now?" Vin and Elend would be watching quietly, trying to figure the best way to get Ruin to step on a Lego.

This is the best analogy.

[Kasimir he/him]

1. Technically, that's not moral nihilism. That's emotivism. Moral nihilism is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether; and also separate from error theory.

2. Emotivism faces one major challenge and that is:

A. Explaining moral disagreement
B. The Frege-Geach challenge.

Thank you and have a nice day, I'll show myself out.

 

Edit: Sorry; prospective welder cannot count. Two major challenges, then.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Kasimir

[Citadel16 he/him]

_{could someone collect my body?}

_{this thread has killed me.}

_{why is the font size so small?}

[Zathoth]

Good is helping others.

 

Evil is hurting others.

 

Doing neither is just decent.

 

 

To me, not hurting others is the One Moral Commandment the universe delivers to us. It is not okay to hurt others. If you think it's okay, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is. Hurting others is wrong.

 

The only gray area is hurting someone who is trying to hurt others, thus acting in defense. That is the one time I can accept it as the right thing to do.

 

Every culture on this planet includes some variation of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the foundation of all other forms of morality, even when superfluous stuff is glued onto it. To violate the Golden Rule, to harm another innocent human being, is the very essence of evil.

 

I hate moral nihilism because it claims that even the Golden Rule is meaningless, and thus implies that technically it's a-okay to slaughter children, rape anyone you like, and steal whatever catches your eye, and the only reason you shouldn't is because society tells you not to. I refuse to subscribe to that brand of morality, or lack thereof.

So is eating good or evil? You destroyed something to eat it, even plants try to survive, should we not respect that? (Yes, you are not the only one who just heard Pattern hum "Eating is great evil" in your head)  Taking a walk, you may step on insects, thats evil, human society as it is, destroy the homes of other beings. 

 

If you save the prey of a predator who did you just help? Save the prey of a hunter, who did you help? If two starving humans have nothing to eat but each other, who is the evil one?

 

Stop the growth of humanity however and you have hurt the humans. Losers and winners, someone wins, someone loses.

 

If you dont want the crazy serial killer to murder someone you stop them, not because it is right, but because you want to. Your urge isnt worth more than his, but it is not worth less either. Existence, it is a conflict.

 

Unnn... that may have sounded arrogant. I basically just walked you through my thought process.

 

 

Makes me think of the Nighthound vs Lucentia situation just not quite as extreme. One is much more evil but real life can be projected on the other one.

 

Congratulation! You made a good book choice.

Ive read one and a half chapter, then philosophy happened XD

 

I gotta stop clogging this thread with philosophy...

 

 

1. Technically, that's not moral nihilism. That's emotivism. Moral nihilism is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether; and also separate from error theory.

2. Emotivism faces one major challenge and that is:

A. Explaining moral disagreement

B. The Frege-Geach challenge.

Thank you and have a nice day, I'll show myself out.

 

Edit: Sorry; prospective welder cannot count. Two major challenges, then.

Nonono! Stay! The only philosophy I really do is thinking too much, I dont read much of it so I dont know the names of the ideas or anything. Im not sure where I was going with that...

 

 

Anyway back to the book!

[Kobold King he/him]

So is eating good or evil? You destroyed something to eat it, even plants try to survive, should we not respect that? (Yes, you are not the only one who just heard Pattern hum "Eating is great evil" in your head)  Taking a walk, you may step on insects, thats evil, human society as it is, destroy the homes of other beings. 

 

If you save the prey of a predator who did you just help? Save the prey of a hunter, who did you help? If two starving humans have nothing to eat but each other, who is the evil one?

 

Stop the growth of humanity however and you have hurt the humans. Losers and winners, someone wins, someone loses.

 

If you dont want the crazy serial killer to murder someone you stop them, not because it is right, but because you want to. Your urge isnt worth more than his, but it is not worth less either. Existence, it is a conflict.

 

Unnn... that may have sounded arrogant. I basically just walked you through my thought process.

 

 

Those are harsh realities of our world. Things we can try to minimize but never eradicate altogether. That's not our fault. (And for the record, I've posted long rants about the destructive aspects of our current society before. The fact that cities harm wildlife is no news to me. )

 

 

What exactly do you think of people like Jack the Killer or Ted Bundy? Do you genuinely believe that there was nothing wrong with what they did? When Bundy abducted and raped teenage girls, was his action no more evil than my eating a hard-boiled egg? I ask because if we cannot agree that the actions of a serial rapist are inherently wrong and utterly unjustifiable from any and all perspectives, I'm afraid we have too little shared ground to carry on a conversation.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

So is eating good or evil? You destroyed something to eat it, even plants try to survive, should we not respect that? (Yes, you are not the only one who just heard Pattern hum "Eating is great evil" in your head)  Taking a walk, you may step on insects, thats evil, human society as it is, destroy the homes of other beings. 

 

If you save the prey of a predator who did you just help? Save the prey of a hunter, who did you help? If two starving humans have nothing to eat but each other, who is the evil one?

 

Stop the growth of humanity however and you have hurt the humans. Losers and winners, someone wins, someone loses.

 

If you dont want the crazy serial killer to murder someone you stop them, not because it is right, but because you want to. Your urge isnt worth more than his, but it is not worth less either. Existence, it is a conflict.

 

Unnn... that may have sounded arrogant. I basically just walked you through my thought process.

 

 

Taken to its logical conclusion, the question of whether eating is good or evil could end in the voluntary extinction of mankind. Eating destroys, therefore eating is evil, therefore people should not eat, therefore people should die. I'm in no way saying this is what you meant; I'm just pointing out that the logical extreme of this line of thought isn't pretty. 

 

The evil one is the reason they're so starving they have to resort to cannibalism. On their own, most, if not all, people wouldn't eat one another; it's the outside force that drove them to such an extreme. Why are they so starving? Answer that question, and the evil one will be easier to find. I'm not saying that eating another human isn't wrong, because it is; but people don't do that without extreme circumstances forcing them into it. 

 

Then there's the matter of the circumstances themselves—two people resorting to cannibalism because of a despot whose policies caused famine are in an entirely different situation than, say, the Donner Party, who were driven to it by forces of nature they hadn't prepared for. For the former, it's a clear question of evil driving good people to terrible choices; for the latter, it's more a question of their lack of preparedness leading to tragedy. 

 

The question of urges only holds true when you kill the serial killer because you want to kill someone. Stopping a crazed serial killer because you don't want them to kill someone else isn't evil; it's preserving life. The motive there is to keep someone else from dying at the hands of another person. What the serial killer is doing is wrong, his urges anything but valid. 

[Zathoth]

Those are harsh realities of our world. Things we can try to minimize but never eradicate altogether. That's not our fault. (And for the record, I've posted long rants about the destructive aspects of our current society before. The fact that cities harm wildlife is no news to me. )

 

 

What exactly do you think of people like Jack the Killer or Ted Bundy? Do you genuinely believe that there was nothing wrong with what they did? When Bundy abducted and raped teenage girls, was his action no more evil than my eating a hard-boiled egg? I ask because if we cannot agree that the actions of a serial rapist are inherently wrong and utterly unjustifiable from any and all perspectives, I'm afraid we have too little shared ground to carry on a conversation.

 

Of course I think it was wrong, but thats the catch, I think it was wrong. There is no metaphysical entity that makes it wrong, it is not hard coded into the universe that rape and murder is wrong, it is an opinion, it is mine and I would feel a lot better if it didnt happen, but it is still just an opinion.

 

 

Taken to its logical conclusion, the question of whether eating is good or evil could end in the voluntary extinction of mankind. Eating destroys, therefore eating is evil, therefore people should not eat, therefore people should die. I'm in no way saying this is what you meant; I'm just pointing out that the logical extreme of this line of thought isn't pretty. 

 

The evil one is the reason they're so starving they have to resort to cannibalism. On their own, most, if not all, people wouldn't eat one another; it's the outside force that drove them to such an extreme. Why are they so starving? Answer that question, and the evil one will be easier to find. I'm not saying that eating another human isn't wrong, because it is; but people don't do that without extreme circumstances forcing them into it. 

 

Then there's the matter of the circumstances themselves—two people resorting to cannibalism because of a despot whose policies caused famine are in an entirely different situation than, say, the Donner Party, who were driven to it by forces of nature they hadn't prepared for. For the former, it's a clear question of evil driving good people to terrible choices; for the latter, it's more a question of their lack of preparedness leading to tragedy. 

 

The question of urges only holds true when you kill the serial killer because you want to kill someone. Stopping a crazed serial killer because you don't want them to kill someone else isn't evil; it's preserving life. The motive there is to keep someone else from dying at the hands of another person. What the serial killer is doing is wrong, his urges anything but valid. 

That is pretty much what I meant XD

 

Well, why is eating a human more horrible than eating a cow? You are still killing someone. (Yes, fruit are going to fall anyway, yes I just broke my own argument)

 

But why is preserving life better? The person in question is going to die anyway. Why is your needs worth more than the killers needs?

 

What I am saying isnt "We shouldnt stop people from getting murdered." What I am saying is that we have no god given right to stop people from killing others. To the killer you are the villain and dont give me the "But he is delusional" stuff.

 

 

Also my cousin just texted me "What the hell is wrong with Straff?!"

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Of course I think it was wrong, but thats the catch, I think it was wrong. There is no metaphysical entity that makes it wrong, it is not hard coded into the universe that rape and murder is wrong, it is an opinion, it is mine and I would feel a lot better if it didnt happen, but it is still just an opinion.

 

 

That is pretty much what I meant XD

 

Well, why is eating a human more horrible than eating a cow? You are still killing someone. (Yes, fruit are going to fall anyway, yes I just broke my own argument)

 

But why is preserving life better? The person in question is going to die anyway. Why is your needs worth more than the killers needs?

 

What I am saying isnt "We shouldnt stop people from getting murdered." What I am saying is that we have no god given right to stop people from killing others. To the killer you are the villain and dont give me the "But he is delusional" stuff.

 

 

Also my cousin just texted me "What the hell is wrong with Straff?!"

 

Why? Why is it just an opinion? If it's an opinion millions of other humans share, and it's an opinion humans have shared since the beginning of human society, why is it "just" an opinion? 

 

Whether you believe in God or another deity or not, I think the existence of this shared belief that destroying human life is wrong means there is something to that argument. A person of faith might say that human life is sacred and shouldn't be destroyed for that reason. Separate the belief in the sanctity of human life from the belief in a deity, and you're still left with the fact that humans depend on one another for the survival of our species. Destroying one human life won't jeopardize the entire human race, no, but it will cause a ripple effect in the lives of those who knew the person you just killed. If human beings depend on one another, destroying one and damaging many more is not a wise move. 

 

Now, I know that I'm moving into more emotional territory, perhaps putting forth a plea to emotion (a logical fallacy) with what I say next, but I think it bears saying: Can you really look into the eyes of a person whose sibling, parent, partner or friend was murdered by a person who killed for the sake of killing, and say "That person's urge to kill your loved one was no less valid than your loved one's urge to stay alive"? Does the thought of saying that horrify you? I believe it should. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by TwiLyghtSansSparkles

[Guest]

Plot twist: Kipper and his brother are Zeus and Poseidon.

Yeah, pretty much.

I bet young Hades would be the kind of kid who shows girls that he likes them by kicking sand in their faces and laughing at them. Kipper, did your little brother do that?

I don't think so, but then, my little brother isn't Hades. He's Poseidon.

So is eating good or evil? You destroyed something to eat it, even plants try to survive, should we not respect that? (Yes, you are not the only one who just heard Pattern hum "Eating is great evil" in your head) Taking a walk, you may step on insects, thats evil, human society as it is, destroy the homes of other beings.

Really?

Situation: You must kill Being A, Being B, or Being C. Which one is most evil to kill? Being A: An ant. Being B: A human. Being C: A palm tree.

Situation: You just totally crushed two beings' heads, voluntarily. Which one do you feel more remorse or guilt over, Being A or Being B? Being A: Ant. Being B: Human.

I personally believe that the life of a human is of much greater value than that of any animal or plant, and this is borne out by the actions of virtually everyone on the globe, except for a few ethical camps who completely ignore traditional moral law in favor of treating every organism as if they are on the same level of value. Should we treat animals like humans? Should we treat humans like animals? Or plants? These are questions that most people don't even think about, because the answer is actually quite obvious. I'm all for treating animals nicely, but they should never take on the inherent value of a human.

^My opinion, and something that would sabotage a conversation if we disagree on it.

If you dont want the crazy serial killer to murder someone you stop them, not because it is right, but because you want to. Your urge isnt worth more than his, but it is not worth less either. Existence, it is a conflict.

Really?

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder your mother. You have the ability to stop him. What is right? Okay, emotional attachment; let's take it further.

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder a defenseless child. You have the ability to stop him. What is right? Well, it's a child who has a loving mother and father; they will grieve. Let's take it further.

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder a homeless guy. No family, no one who cares about the guy, nothing. You have the ability to stop him. What is right?

If you can honestly tell me that it is no more right to stop the serial killer than to just walk away, I'm afraid we don't have much in common on fundamental ethical issues. There is something inherently morally wrong in killing another human being just because one has a desire to. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about a simple desire to kill a human being, unprovoked. Acting on that desire is wrong, period. I think you'll find that most of the rest of the world is in agreement on that.

Edit: Ninja'd several times over.

I believe that some things are hard-coded into our consciences. It's irrelevant whether they come from long-held animalistic survival instincts or a metaphysical entity; they are still there. Show me a culture that doesn't have a problem with unmotivated, unprovoked killing.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[Kobold King he/him]

Of course I think it was wrong, but thats the catch, I think it was wrong. There is no metaphysical entity that makes it wrong, it is not hard coded into the universe that rape and murder is wrong, it is an opinion, it is mine and I would feel a lot better if it didnt happen, but it is still just an opinion.

 

 

Well, why do you think it's wrong then? If the universe doesn't care, what does it matter? Why aren't you ignoring that pesky conscience and doing whatever you please, stealing, raping, and murdering all the way into town? If there's no such thing as an inherent morality, than all you have is a socially encoded weakness that you should be shucking out of your mind as soon as possible.

 

 

The fact that you are a good creature who realizes that raping little girls is wrong tells me that on some level, you recognize that there is a morality higher than yourself. If morality is really meaningless, you're a clever enough person to have realized that your reluctance to bash newborn skulls into the pavement is illogical and worthless and should have been discarded long ago.

 

I believe Ted Bundy was a terrible human being for what he did. My belief isn't what matters--what matters is that he harmed others, and that renders him utterly wrong on a cosmic level. Under your argument, a child molester is no less pure and praiseworthy than Mother Teresa, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool with no logical backing. The idea of that appalls me, and I think it appalls you too on some level. And I think you realize that if you chose to become a child molester, the crime would become no less wrong and depraved just because your opinion changed about it.

 

At least I hope you do, because if you really believe with every fiber of your being that if you decided to become a rapist it would be a-okay for you, than you are a far more disturbing individual than I'd pegged you as. And I don't think you're really that depraved, no matter what you say.

 

 

This is why I believe in moral absolutes. Because if we don't believe in one single moral anchor tethering us to an absolute virtue, than none of the suffering on this planet has any meaning. The mere thought that my ethical worldview has no more meaning than that of a child molester makes me so sick my skin crawls, and I refuse to stand for it.

 

 

Anyway, I'll be going off to make scrambled eggs for lunch now. I think my side in this argument is pretty much over, because as much as it pains me to say it, if you can say that a serial rapist is no less right or wrong than anyone else on this planet, there's no appeal to decency that I can make because you don't believe decency exists.

 

See you after lunch, guys.

[Zathoth]

Why? Why is it just an opinion? If it's an opinion millions of other humans share, and it's an opinion humans have shared since the beginning of human society, why is it "just" an opinion? 

 

Whether you believe in God or another deity or not, I think the existence of this shared belief that destroying human life is wrong means there is something to that argument. A person of faith might say that human life is sacred and shouldn't be destroyed for that reason. Separate the belief in the sanctity of human life from the belief in a deity, and you're still left with the fact that humans depend on one another for the survival of our species. Destroying one human life won't jeopardize the entire human race, no, but it will cause a ripple effect in the lives of those who knew the person you just killed. If human beings depend on one another, destroying one and damaging many more is not a wise move. 

 

Now, I know that I'm moving into more emotional territory, perhaps putting forth a plea to emotion (a logical fallacy) with what I say next, but I think it bears saying: Can you really look into the eyes of a person whose sibling, parent, partner or friend was murdered by a person who killed for the sake of killing, and say "That person's urge to kill your loved one was no less valid than your loved one's urge to stay alive"? Does the thought of saying that horrify you? I believe it should. 

Millions of Romans believed that watching people killing each other was perfectly good entertainment. We disagree. Now I have personally argued that the suffering of the ones actually doing the killing and dying outweights the entertainment of the ones watching, but thats my opinion.

 

And what makes human life sacred but not the life of a cow?

 

And now we are getting to the logical reasons why you shouldnt kill people. You should indeed not kill people, then people will want revenge and the more people who want you dead puts your own survival at risk.

Still, you may as well argue that if you killed all humans there are an innumerable amount of life forms on this planet that would benefit from it.

 

Of course it does, Im slightly crazy, not heartless. It would also not benefit me to do so.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Millions of Romans believed that watching people killing each other was perfectly good entertainment. We disagree. Now I have personally argued that the suffering of the ones actually doing the killing and dying outweights the entertainment of the ones watching, but thats my opinion.

And what makes human life sacred but not the life of a cow?

And now we are getting to the logical reasons why you shouldnt kill people. You should indeed not kill people, then people will want revenge and the more people who want you dead puts your own survival at risk.

Still, you may as well argue that if you killed all humans there are an innumerable amount of life forms on this planet that would benefit from it.

Of course it does, Im slightly crazy, not heartless. It would also not benefit me to do so.

So what makes it immoral for someone else to kill your loved one, or even you? By your logic, if a crazed serial killer mirdered your family and friends, you have no moral standing from which to condemn his actions. The police have no moral standing from which to apprehend him. Judges have no moral standing from which to condemn him, and prison guards have no moral standing from which to detain him. What he did was no more or less moral than what the person at the soup kitchen did when they fed a hundred people from their own pocket.

[Kaymyth she/her]

*opens up a popcorn stand and starts selling bags*

[Edgedancer he/him]

*opens up a popcorn stand and starts selling bags*

*takes one*

[Orlion Blight he/him]

*opens up a popcorn stand and starts selling bags*

Ah, but is it moral to profit off the moral quandaries of others?

[Edgedancer he/him]

Ah, but is it moral to profit off the moral quandaries of others?

Well by Kobold's definition, she isn't harming anyone, so it isn't wrong and by Morzathoth's it isn't either, so I say just let us enjoy the popcorn.

[Kaymyth she/her]

Well, see, I had all this popcorn, and I can't stand the stuff myself...

 

Nah.  I'm totally profiting off of the spectator sport of watching people philosophize at each other. 

[Zathoth]

Ah, ninjas, I'll just double post this because quoting is annoying in editing...

 

 

Really?
Situation: You must kill Being A, Being B, or Being C. Which one is most evil to kill? Being A: An ant. Being B: A human. Being C: A palm tree.

Situation: You just totally crushed two beings' heads, voluntarily. Which one do you feel more remorse or guilt over, Being A or Being B? Being A: Ant. Being B: Human.

I personally believe that the life of a human is of much greater value than that of any animal or plant, and this is borne out by the actions of virtually everyone on the globe, except for a few ethical camps who completely ignore traditional moral law in favor of treating every organism as if they are on the same level of value. Should we treat animals like humans? Should we treat humans like animals? Or plants? These are questions that most people don't even think about, because the answer is actually quite obvious. I'm all for treating animals nicely, but they should never take on the inherent value of a human.
^My opinion, and something that would sabotage a conversation if we disagree on it.

Really?

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder your mother. You have the ability to stop him. What is right? Okay, emotional attachment; let's take it further.

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder a defenseless child. You have the ability to stop him. What is right? Well, it's a child who has a loving mother and father; they will grieve. Let's take it further.

Situation: A serial killer is about to murder a homeless guy. No family, no one who cares about the guy, nothing. You have the ability to stop him. What is right?

If you can honestly tell me that it is no more right to stop the serial killer than to just walk away, I'm afraid we don't have much in common on fundamental ethical issues. There is something inherently morally wrong in killing another human being just because one has a desire to. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about a simple desire to kill a human being, unprovoked. Acting on that desire is wrong, period. I think you'll find that most of the rest of the world is in agreement on that.

Edit: Ninja'd several times over.


I believe that some things are hard-coded into our consciences. It's irrelevant whether they come from long-held animalistic survival instincts or a metaphysical entity; they are still there. Show me a culture that doesn't have a problem with unmotivated, unprovoked killing.

I would argue that killing insects is more evil than humans because insects actually do something that is not destroying the planet.

Humans however would give me a harsher punishment, so killing a human is less useful, in a way, for me personally at least.

 

Right? It is not about what is right, I love my mother, I'd rather not have her dead.

 

I am so weak that the child can probably defend itself better than I could defend it, but yes, defend the child of course, because I want to defend the child. It would make me feel better in doing so, which is useful.

 

There I would probably run away, if the killer can kill an adult Im not going to be able to help much unless I am armed.

 

I would feel better if I saved him, yes, of course, but I'd rather not die.

 

Also Im not going to keep arguing against appeal to masses. Thats a fallacy. Just because most people believe it doesnt make it true.

 

 

So what makes it immoral for someone else to kill your loved one, or even you? By your logic, if a crazed serial killer mirdered your family and friends, you have no moral standing from which to condemn his actions. The police have no moral standing from which to apprehend him. Judges have no moral standing from which to condemn him, and prison guards have no moral standing from which to detain him. What he did was no more or less moral than what the person at the soup kitchen did when they fed a hundred people from their own pocket.

Which is why we have laws. Laws are not moral absolutes, they are there to make sure we continue as a society, which I personally think is a pretty good idea as I like this entire tap water, roof over my head, internet and not having to hunt for food thing.

 

 

Well, why do you think it's wrong then? If the universe doesn't care, what does it matter? Why aren't you ignoring that pesky conscience and doing whatever you please, stealing, raping, and murdering all the way into town? If there's no such thing as an inherent morality, than all you have is a socially encoded weakness that you should be shucking out of your mind as soon as possible.

 

The fact that you are a good creature who realizes that raping little girls is wrong tells me that on some level, you recognize that there is a morality higher than yourself. If morality is really meaningless, you're a clever enough person to have realized that your reluctance to bash newborn skulls into the pavement is illogical and worthless and should have been discarded long ago.

 

I believe Ted Bundy was a terrible human being for what he did. My belief isn't what matters--what matters is that he harmed others, and that renders him utterly wrong on a cosmic level. Under your argument, a child molester is no less pure and praiseworthy than Mother Teresa, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool with no logical backing. The idea of that appalls me, and I think it appalls you too on some level. And I think you realize that if you chose to become a child molester, the crime would become no less wrong and depraved just because your opinion changed about it.

 

At least I hope you do, because if you really believe with every fiber of your being that if you decided to become a rapist it would be a-okay for you, than you are a far more disturbing individual than I'd pegged you as. And I don't think you're really that depraved, no matter what you say.

 

 

This is why I believe in moral absolutes. Because if we don't believe in one single moral anchor tethering us to an absolute virtue, than none of the suffering on this planet has any meaning. The mere thought that my ethical worldview has no more meaning than that of a child molester makes me so sick my skin crawls, and I refuse to stand for it.

 

 

Anyway, I'll be going off to make scrambled eggs for lunch now. I think my side in this argument is pretty much over, because as much as it pains me to say it, if you can say that a serial rapist is no less right or wrong than anyone else on this planet, there's no appeal to decency that I can make because you don't believe decency exists.

 

See you after lunch, guys.

Because it would not be useful to do so. I dont think they limit me, I think they help me. I dont want to murder, as little as I want to ram a spike through my eye.

 

Exactly, it is not very useful. So I dont do it, because why would I?

 

Oh dont give me Lady "Im not going to give you pain killers as you die in pain because I think it is wrong to do so but when I die I will have everything I want~" as an example of a decent human being.

 

It wouldnt be ok, ok is an opinion, if I decided to be a rapist it would be that, ok and not ok comes in after. It is humans putting values in things.

 

None of this suffering has any meaning. None of this has a meaning, we are here, thats that, meaning, as I said, comes from humans, it is something we create and if you ask me I think it is beautiful how we can take this cold and illogical cosmos and make something from it. 

 

 

 

Enjoy your eggs and

 

 

tl;dr things happen, values comes after. Values are created by humans.

 

 

 

Thank you forum mom for distracting more arguments ninjaing me, the "Show new messages" function isnt working for me.

[Kobold King he/him]

Of course it does, Im slightly crazy, not heartless. It would also not benefit me to do so.

 

 

What does it matter if you have a heart or not? If you don't believe in morality, it doesn't matter one whit. Being heartless is no worse than being virtuous. Being a rapist is no worse than being a saint. Running a concentration camp is no worse than founding a charity.

 

And a moral code which teaches not to murder or rape or steal only because you'll get in trouble is no moral code at all. It's a pragmatic guide.

 

Morzathoth, the thing is, by your own argument your own moral code doesn't matter. If you're right, then you're completely illogical in being disgusted by eating babies or knocking old ladies down staircases. The fact that you nonetheless are disgusted, the fact that you continue to cling to ethics and use words like "heartless" with contempt, prove that on some level you realize that some things are utterly, irredeemably wrong no matter what the perpetrator thinks.

 

 

If you could prove your point to us by brutally stabbing a little girl to death, with absolutely no negative repercussions for doing it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Why not? What's holding you back? If morality is an illusion, why do you still cling to it?

 

We're waiting. Are you going to murder that toddler or not?

 

Could it be that morality isn't as meaningless than you thought?

[Kaymyth she/her]

Thank you forum mom for distracting more arguments ninjaing me, the "Show new messages" function isnt working for me.

 

It never works for me, either.  I'm not sure why.

 

Popcorn?

[Zathoth]

What does it matter if you have a heart or not? If you don't believe in morality, it doesn't matter one whit. Being heartless is no worse than being virtuous. Being a rapist is no worse than being a saint. Running a concentration camp is no worse than founding a charity.

 

And a moral code which teaches not to murder or rape or steal only because you'll get in trouble is no moral code at all. It's a pragmatic guide.

 

Morzathoth, the thing is, by your own argument your own moral code doesn't matter. If you're right, then you're completely illogical in being disgusted by eating babies or knocking old ladies down staircases. The fact that you nonetheless are disgusted, the fact that you continue to cling to ethics and use words like "heartless" with contempt, prove that on some level you realize that some things are utterly, irredeemably wrong no matter what the perpetrator thinks.

 

 

If you could prove your point to us by brutally stabbing a little girl to death, with absolutely no negative repercussions for doing it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Why not? What's holding you back? If morality is an illusion, why do you still cling to it?

 

We're waiting. Are you going to murder that toddler or not?

 

Could it be that morality isn't as meaningless than you thought?

Too bad you think so because pragmatism is my moral code.

 

Yes, I am completely illogical. I am as you may remember actually a human being, like the rest of you. It is not like an appeal to a higher authority of somekind makes it more moral, it is not like it being hardwired in us makes it right or wrong, it is there.

 

It is an appeal to Me, I am the only moral guide I need.

 

 

As for your example we are not Batman and The Joker, I am not going to kill people just to prove a philosophical point, that would be very childish of me.

And again, it would not please me to do so. Do I need another reason? Does right and wrong really need to be written in the stars, or said by god or be hardwired in our DNA?

 

My code is My own. Even if the stars change or god changes their mind it is still mine.

 

And thats My opinion, no more right than any others.

 

Things are put into existence, things exist, then they are put out of existence, the values of all this, is a human creation.

 

 

Now I hope this ninja isnt more arguments...

 

 

It never works for me, either.  I'm not sure why.

 

Popcorn?

 

 

EDIT: Im sadly with you in the anti-popcorn party. I'll take some chips if you have.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Morzathoth

[Edgedancer he/him]

It never works for me, either.  I'm not sure why.

 

Popcorn?

That makes at least three of us then. I personally adopted by opening the pages only in tabs and refreshing the discussion page before posting.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Edgedancer

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

What does it matter if you have a heart or not? If you don't believe in morality, it doesn't matter one whit. Being heartless is no worse than being virtuous. Being a rapist is no worse than being a saint. Running a concentration camp is no worse than founding a charity.

 

And a moral code which teaches not to murder or rape or steal only because you'll get in trouble is no moral code at all. It's a pragmatic guide.

 

Morzathoth, the thing is, by your own argument your own moral code doesn't matter. If you're right, then you're completely illogical in being disgusted by eating babies or knocking old ladies down staircases. The fact that you nonetheless are disgusted, the fact that you continue to cling to ethics and use words like "heartless" with contempt, prove that on some level you realize that some things are utterly, irredeemably wrong no matter what the perpetrator thinks.

 

 

If you could prove your point to us by brutally stabbing a little girl to death, with absolutely no negative repercussions for doing it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Why not? What's holding you back? If morality is an illusion, why do you still cling to it?

 

We're waiting. Are you going to murder that toddler or not?

 

Could it be that morality isn't as meaningless than you thought?

 

Leading off what Kobold said, I'm going to get a bit personal. I hope you all don't mind, but I feel more comfortable speaking from my own experiences than those of a general faceless mass of people. 

 

If morality is a thing created by humans, what right does one human have to tell another human that their morality system hurts them? If morality is personal, and one person's urges are no more or less valid than another's, and people do the "right" thing because of the good feeling they get when they do it, then….

 

My mom feels better when she lectures and berates me for something I didn't do. It makes me feel bad. What right do I have to say what she's doing is wrong, if it makes her feel good? 

 

My dad wanted me to get straight A's when I was in high school. He would scold me until I cried to push me toward that. If having a daughter who gets straight A's makes him feel good, and I push myself past the point of exhaustion to get straight A's, what right do I have to tell him that what he's doing is wrong? 

 

Forbidding me from disagreeing with her makes my mom look better, as she appears to have raised a daughter who agrees with her on everything. What right do I have to tell her that what she is doing is wrong? 

[Zathoth]

Are you two possibly using firefox?

It works on another forum using this engine, not sure why it isnt working on this one...

[Blaze1616 he/him]

To just step in, for a quick word, you've all missed Morzathoth's original point; morality is a human construct. You all actually kinda proved it in your arguments. Perhaps the conversation has veered away from this and into you all questioning Morzathoth's personal views on morality, or perhaps I missed the conclusion of the original argument.

 

Either way, enjoy. I'll take a popcorn bag, Kaymyth.