Random Stuff IV

[Edgedancer 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.

No, I think you actually understood the course of the conversation perfectly.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

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.

 

What I'm questioning is individual-centered morality. "I do this because I benefit from it and if it benefits others, wonderful." 

[Zathoth]

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? 

What right do you need?

 

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.

You sir, deserve all the popcorn in the world.

 

 

 

What I'm questioning is individual-centered morality. "I do this because I benefit from it and if it benefits others, wonderful." 

What else do you need?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Morzathoth

[Guest]

An interesting quote.

Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.

Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true.

Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).

The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist's view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.

Also, see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

And after that I'm done. Don't want to become mad, y'see.

Edit: Blaze, good sir, I do believe that I've been speaking against morality as a human construct...

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[Kobold King he/him]

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?

 

 

So it's childish to brutally rip a toddler to shreds to prove a point... but not morally repugnant to you.

 

You personally do not enjoy ripping toddlers to shreds... but it is not wrong to do so.

 

 

I am sorry. I am deeply sorry, and don't take this the wrong way... but I have nothing more to say to you. There is nothing I could say, to a person who believes that raping women is anything less than evil or that slaughtering the innocent is inadvisable but otherwise tolerable. Your ideology is uncentered and allows for the most abhorrent things I can imagine. There is really no further place for a conversation between us to go.

 

Good day to you.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

What right do you need?

What right does she need? Individualistic morality can only carry one so far. Eventually, you run smack into the might-makes-right argument. What right does she need? The right of strength. What does she have that I don't? She's stronger financially, making me dependent on her. If I don't need a right to oppose her, she doesn't need a right to oppress me. What she's doing isn't wrong, because she's the hero of her own story.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

What I'm questioning is individual-centered morality. "I do this because I benefit from it and if it benefits others, wonderful." 

 

We all have our individual-centered morality. For example, I believe if I eat out at a sit-down restaurant, I always ought to tip at least five dollars or twenty percent, whichever is higher...at the least! This is in no way a "universal value", even if I judge you based on whether or not you live up to my standards... but in these cases, it really does not matter and matters at the same time: does not matter to the conversationalist who wants to demand the stabbing of children to prove a point but matters to me and the waiters/waitresses.

 

And that's what we use to deal with people a lot of times (though there are also group-centered, society-centered, world-center moralities as well) because we deal on an individual level, on what we need to do to "sleep at night". As a result, one might simultaneously hold conflicting views such as "stealing is wrong" and "stealing food to feed a starving kid is right". Rationally, the two statements can not both be correct, much like saying "Hurting someone is wrong" and "Hurting someone who hurts is right" is also conflicting.

 

That means that Twidad pushing Twi to get A's would have probably been the right thing for him to do because he believed it was the most helpful thing for him to do, whereas Twi would posit that it was harmful... and a starving kid in Nicaragua would look at this "moral conundrum" and not give a damnation. So who out of the three is correct? Does Twidad's sense of duty and the Nicaraguan kid's malnutrition invalidate Twi's experience of hurt? On the individual level, the answer is no, we actually have a sort of parallel pluralism going going on in which each of the three individuals have arrived at different conclusions in a reasonably rational way. The reasonably rationalness of it all won't change anyone's mind, so in a societal way, an important value is tolerance. That does not mean that Twi "justifies" what Twidad did, nor that the Nicaraguan kid has to be sorry about caring about his own selfish motivations than a family dynamic going on hundreds of miles away. It just means each can hold a different view point and still participate in society. 

 

We've now reached the societal level, where a lot of rights and wrongs can be defined, and I've realized that I am mostly rambling... I don't really have a point here, except to post a Led Zeppelin song

 

[Zathoth]

So it's childish to brutally rip a toddler to shreds to prove a point... but not morally repugnant to you.

 

You personally do not enjoy ripping toddlers to shreds... but it is not wrong to do so.

 

 

I am sorry. I am deeply sorry, and don't take this the wrong way... but I have nothing more to say to you. There is nothing I could say, to a person who believes that raping women is anything less than evil or that slaughtering the innocent is inadvisable but otherwise tolerable. Your ideology is uncentered and allows for the most abhorrent things I can imagine. There is really no further place for a conversation between us to go.

 

Good day to you.

Why do I believe that the soul of the universe tells me what is right and wrong? Thats what I dont understand.

I do think it is... Ive already said this. I think so, my opinions are not the truth.

 

 

What right does she need? Individualistic morality can only carry one so far. Eventually, you run smack into the might-makes-right argument. What right does she need? The right of strength. What does she have that I don't? She's stronger financially, making me dependent on her. If I don't need a right to oppose her, she doesn't need a right to oppress me. What she's doing isn't wrong, because she's the hero of her own story.

Yes, we are all heroes of our own stories, what you are completely forgetting now is that you are the hero of your own.

I dont believe in rights, people will act as they please. If we dont like how they act then we may stop them, but as the overly quoted couplet reads: "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." You may indeed tell her to stop, there are reasons you dont do it, and thats that.

 

 

 

I give up... and I liked this place too... ah well. It was nice.

[Kobold King he/him]

I give up... and I liked this place too... ah well. It was nice.

 

 

Not trying to attack you or drive you away. My apologies for sounding hostile.

 

My point is simply that if we cannot even agree that rape is intrinsically wrong regardless of your perspective, we have no morals in common and cannot continue this conversation. Or at least, if we did there'd be an awful lot of going around in circles.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Edit: Blaze, good sir, I do believe that I've been speaking against morality as a human construct...

 

My apologies, I did not realize that was your intention. Though I must say, having gone back and re-read your first post, you really didn't speak against it, but rather supported Morzathoth's original point that morality is merely that which is the norm, that which is believed to be right by the majority, rather than some constant "force" in the universe. Though perhaps once again I've misunderstood you.

 

 

I give up... and I liked this place too... ah well. It was nice.

 

It sounds like you're leaving. Why would you leave? You've done nothing wrong, and neither have those you've been debating with. You've all merely reached an impasse, in which the debate can not be further taken.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Blaze1616

[STINK he/him]

I'm surprised to see no talk of assisted suicide, isn't that a big thing recently? (sorry if this is now over)

[WayneSpren he/him]

All I know is that this is wrong.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCMbFmf3nmskCFVj6Ywod9GkPcg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fos83.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fstar-wars-photoshop-volume-two-jar-jar.html&psig=AFQjCNGJ4R4adyoGHl2UcA3V1hSMNAHpXg&ust=1447964781749168

Edited November 18, 2015 by WayneSpren

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Kobold I'll get to you... later... when I feel like arguing moral nihilism... and stuff... Lets just say I sort of agree...

 

 

Anyway I got The Black Prism!

Enjoy it!

 

 

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.

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

This is the best analogy.

Yeah, I'll get back to it soon, but I don't think I'll ever be able to read it straight through. It takes too much work to push through that kind of writing for so long. 

 

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. 

Destruction itself isn't evil. Not in my opinion at least. The same way Ruin isn't inherently evil. Destruction is necessary, it just needs to be balanced by Preservation. WIthout destruction, you get stasis, nothing progresses, nothing changes, everything is the same. 

[Zathoth]

My apologies, I did not realize that was your intention. Though I must say, having gone back and re-read your first post, you really didn't speak against it, but rather supported Morzathoth's original point that morality is merely that which is the norm, that which is believed to be right by the majority, rather than some constant "force" in the universe. Though perhaps once again I've misunderstood you.

 

 

 

It sounds like you're leaving. Why would you leave? You've done nothing wrong, and neither have those you've been debating with. You've all merely reached an impasse, in which the debate can not be further taken.

... why are you getting my points across better than I am? Have all the popcorn in the universe.

 

It felt like everyone thought I was a monster there for a moment XD

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Not trying to attack you or drive you away. My apologies for sounding hostile.

 

My point is simply that if we cannot even agree that rape is intrinsically wrong regardless of your perspective, we have no morals in common and cannot continue this conversation. Or at least, if we did there'd be an awful lot of going around in circles.

 

No problem, it's good to recognize when a discussion is going in circles and has outlived any sort of usefulness. 

 

I have not yet, so here's a ponderance:

 

Person A believes rape is intrinsically and objectively wrong and will fight against it in all circumstances.

Person B believes rape is wrong because he values a person's autonomy/dignity/safety/whatever and will fight against it in all circumstances.

 

The end result is the same: both Person A and Person B will fight against rape in all circumstances, even though they have different beliefs regarding the specific morality of the act. That is why tolerance is, at least practically in this case, important. Person A  and B can join resources and experience to fight against rape and do a lot of what they both view as "good". Or they can waste their resources debating "why" rape is bad.

 

I'm not condemning anyone, I just like discussions

[Kobold King he/him]

No problem, it's good to recognize when a discussion is going in circles and has outlived any sort of usefulness. 

 

I have not yet, so here's a ponderance:

 

Person A believes rape is intrinsically and objectively wrong and will fight against it in all circumstances.

Person B believes rape is wrong because he values a person's autonomy/dignity/safety/whatever and will fight against it in all circumstances.

 

The end result is the same: both Person A and Person B will fight against rape in all circumstances, even though they have different beliefs regarding the specific morality of the act. That is why tolerance is, at least practically in this case, important. Person A  and B can join resources and experience to fight against rape and do a lot of what they both view as "good". Or they can waste their resources debating "why" rape is bad.

 

I'm not condemning anyone, I just like discussions

 

 

As long as both of them are intrinsically opposed to it, then it's merely an example of multiple trains of thought leading to the same ultimately correct conclusion. They could have some pretty interesting conversations about it over coffee, but they'd be foolish to go their separate ways or have a bitter argument over it.

[Elbereth she/her]

Okay. Venture, you were difficult, so I decided to give you someone awesome. How about Idril Celebrindal? Daughter of Turgon (who was also pretty cool) and grandaughter of Fingolfin (who I've talked about before, because he's storming awesome). She gives birth to Earendil, who's also amazing. Sometime I'll talk about him, but there are three or four pages of FotR dedicated to a poem about him, so you can tell he's pretty important.

She herself is "fairer than all the wonders of Gondolin", which is a SUPER SECRET FORTRESS that her dad built to hide from Morgoth/Melkor. She lives there for a long time (they are elves, after all), and gets creepered by her cousin Maeglin, who is a very twisted person. But she's smart enough to see he's evil, so she stays well away from him, and instead marries Tuor. Then Maeglin starts thinking about betraying Gondolin, and Idril's like, "Tuor we need a way to get out of here. Make a tunnel, dearest. NOW." Which Tuor does, and they escape with their seven-year-old son as Gondolin is being slaughtered. This is the only reason anyone from Gondolin survived at all. She actually dresses in armor, unlike most of Tolkien's females, who tend to use more magic and guile.

Tired after all of that fighting and making sure that a few people survive, she and Tuor sail into the West, back to Valinor, though not until she's given her magical green elf-stone to Earendil, which gets passed all the way down to Aragorn, and give him the monarchical name "Elessar", elf-stone.

You're next, Edgedancer!

[Kaymyth she/her]

... why are you getting my points across better than I am? Have all the popcorn in the universe.

 

It felt like everyone thought I was a monster there for a moment XD

 

And don't forget the language barrier here.  Your English is fantastic, Morzathoth, but sometimes things don't quite come across properly when getting into philosophically heavy conversations with a non-native speaker. 

 

And now I think that everybody needs some baby otters:

 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Kaymyth

[Delightful]

As long as both of them are intrinsically opposed to it, then it's merely an example of multiple trains of thought leading to the same ultimately correct conclusion. They could have some pretty interesting conversations about it over coffee, but they'd be foolish to go their separate ways or have a bitter argument over it.

Though they both agree that rape is wrong out of consideration for the victim. If I'm understanding Morzathoth correctly, his philosophy is essentially a selfish one - the victim isn't considered at all, only the perpetrator. Morzathoth am I getting that right?

[Kobold King he/him]

It felt like everyone thought I was a monster there for a moment XD

 

 

I don't think you're a monster, but if I'm understanding your arguments correctly, then then you hold that it doesn't matter whether someone's a monster because only their own morality counts. Which means that Nazis or ISIS agents are no more monsters than anyone on this thread.

 

In essence, the argument that morality doesn't exist outside of an individual's own head excuses monsters.

[Zathoth]

And don't forget the language barrier here.  Your English is fantastic, Morzathoth, but sometimes things don't quite come across properly when getting into philosophically heavy conversations with a non-native speaker. 

 

And now I think that everybody needs some baby otters:

 

Oh right, I actually forget that it is not my native language. I use it too much, I cant even spell in swedish anymore... (It is even funnier than it sounds like, swedish is pretty phonetical compared to english)

 

And yes, baby otters, I need baby otters.

 

 

Though they both agree that rape is wrong out of consideration for the victim. If I'm understanding Morzathoth correctly, his philosophy is essentially a selfish one - the victim isn't considered at all, only the perpetrator. Morzathoth am I getting that right?

Can we not do this now? Im getting a headache.

 

Basically: Stuff happens, someone benefits, someone gets hurt, then people put values into that.

 

My point is: Nothing is intrinsically anything. Meaning is a human construct. I dont need to feel like anything I do is supported by the soul of the universe or anything. 

 

 

Now, can we leave this? If anyone wants to argue with me more send me a PM, later, way later.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Though they both agree that rape is wrong out of consideration for the victim. If I'm understanding Morzathoth correctly, his philosophy is essentially a selfish one - the victim isn't considered at all, only the perpetrator. Morzathoth am I getting that right?

Morzathoth can speak for himself, but in my case, Person B is not "considering the victim", he simply values some quality that he believes the action of rape violates. It could turn out that anything else about the "victim"-their hopes, dreams, interests, hobbies, etc- are completely irrelevant. 

 

 

As long as both of them are intrinsically opposed to it, then it's merely an example of multiple trains of thought leading to the same ultimately correct conclusion. They could have some pretty interesting conversations about it over coffee, but they'd be foolish to go their separate ways or have a bitter argument over it.

 

I would use "inherently" opposed instead of "intrinsically", though I think both would be correct... I just add some other connotations to "intrinsically" that I do not to "inherently".

 

And we are in complete agreement on the latter part.

[Delightful]

Oh right, I actually forget that it is not my native language. I use it too much, I cant even spell in swedish anymore... (It is even funnier than it sounds like, swedish is pretty phonetical compared to english)

And yes, baby otters, I need baby otters.

Can we not do this now? Im getting a headache.

Basically: Stuff happens, someone benefits, someone gets hurt, then people put values into that.

My point is: Nothing is intrinsically anything. Meaning is a human construct. I dont need to feel like anything I do is supported by the soul of the universe or anything.

Now, can we leave this? If anyone wants to argue with me more send me a PM, later, way later.

"Stuff happens" doesn't take personal choice and agency into account.

But yes. We can leave this.

Orlion are you saying someone who doesn't rape because they believe in human dignity is not doing it for the individual victims' dignity, but rather for the abstract concept of dignity/autonomy/whatever?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Delightful

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Orlion are you saying someone who doesn't rape because they believe in human dignity is not doing it for the individual victims' dignity, but rather for the abstract concept of dignity/autonomy/whatever?

I might be guilty of playing semantics, but yes. So, going back to our Person A and B example: Person A I based on Kobold's argument, so that means we can say Person A is specifically concerned about preventing harm. 

 

Person B, based on a counter-point, is not concerned about preventing harm but rather preserving his concept of dignity/autonomy/whatever. His objections to rape are not based on preventing harm, so he does not fight against rape because of any sympathy he has for a victim's pain, but because the values of dignity/autonomy/whatever were violated.

 

Person A and Person B are, of course, one-dimensional characters set to provide an example. I continue to use them in this fashion, namely that people can (and I believe do) hold wildly (and in Person B's case, impersonal) views on morality but can still act together as moral agents. 

 

And as Kobold said many posts ago regarding the Lord Ruler, results matter... a lot.... sometimes much more than intentions. Though even though Person B does not care to alleviate "harm", the results of his actions are the same as Person A's, and they would both be foolish to let mere disagreement of "why" fighting rape is important interfere with the actual action of fighting rape. In fact, they might teach each other somethings over coffee and become real people and not one-dimensional characters in a philosophical ponderance

[Kobold King he/him]

And as Kobold said many posts ago regarding the Lord Ruler, results matter... a lot.... sometimes much more than intentions. Though even though Person B does not care to alleviate "harm", the results of his actions are the same as Person A's, and they would both be foolish to let mere disagreement of "why" fighting rape is important interfere with the actual action of fighting rape. In fact, they might teach each other somethings over coffee and become real people and not one-dimensional characters in a philosophical ponderance

 

 

What if characters in hypothetical situations became self-aware entities with actual sentience? Would we have a moral obligation to make all of our hypothetical characters well fleshed out and happy? Would it be immoral to create a hypothetical scenario in which one person suffers, even for a moment? Would we be morally obligated to spend all of our time dreaming up as many blissful utopias as possible, to increase the number of happy people in the metaverse?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Kobold King