-->
@secularmerlin
If only there was a way to do that in general.
Necessary evils
Posts
Total:
691
-->
@secularmerlin
what you are really doing is believing in some stuff rather than no stuff.
...But I do believe in some stuff.
If your entire goal is just to believe in SOMETHING why believe in your specific thing? Can't you believe absolutely anything you want on faith?
But that’s not my goal, and belief isn’t always predicated on what you want it’s predicated on what you think is realistic, quit yanking my chain this is all elementary stuff.
It's like you are saying you chose an oldsmobile instead of a Kia because you don't like to walk.
...No, it’s not like that at all.
In neither case are you a nihilist so why are the specifics important?
Because nihilism is what life looks like without a higher power (to me at least).
Why not just believe in the bhuda and nirvana?
I’m not too familiar with either one, so I can’t believe in something that I don’t know about.
Try to answer my actual questions instead of some tangential factors that are BESIDES THE POINT.
How can you possibly know what is or isn’t besides the point in regards to MYSELF, unless your claiming to know me better than I know myself and in that case you shouldn’t need to ask questions, so how about you tell me?
-->
@zedvictor4
So, when did I say that?
That was the vibe I was getting when you said social conditioning as an answer.
what you are really doing is believing in some stuff rather than no stuff....But I do believe in some stuff.
Yes that's what I said. You could believe literally anything and you would by definition not be a nihilist. So long as you and I both believe in (some) things neither of us is a nihilist and we don't need to discuss nihilism (the absence of belief) neither of us HAS a lack of beliefs.
If your entire goal is just to believe in SOMETHING why believe in your specific thing? Can't you believe absolutely anything you want on faith?But that’s not my goal, and belief isn’t always predicated on what you want it’s predicated on what you think is realistic, quit yanking my chain this is all elementary stuff.
Almost as if it is not actually up to you what you believe. As if you have no choice but to believe in what you are CONVINCED is correct.
It's like you are saying you chose an oldsmobile instead of a Kia because you don't like to walk....No, it’s not like that at all.
Yes it is. Whichever car you choose you to drive are no longer walking. No matter what beliefs you choose you are not a nihilist.
In neither case are you a nihilist so why are the specifics important?Because nihilism is what life looks like without a higher power (to me at least).
Ok. So the buddha is a higher power. So why not throw buhda? Not every hypothetical higher power includes the baked in idea of a hell.
Try again.
Why not just believe in the bhuda and nirvana?I’m not too familiar with either one, so I can’t believe in something that I don’t know about.
I beg to differ. You believe in something you don't know right now. You just have faith that it is so which is an entirely different thing.
Try again.
Try to answer my actual questions instead of some tangential factors that are BESIDES THE POINT.How can you possibly know what is or isn’t besides the point in regards to MYSELF, unless your claiming to know me better than I know myself and in that case you shouldn’t need to ask questions, so how about you tell me?
Nihilism has not helped you determine WHICH non nihilistic philosophy to imagine is true. I'm asking where you got your ideas about hell. Who told you there was one and why did you believe them? You realize of course that if they had told you about buhda and nirvana instead you would now be a bhudist... statistically speaking
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes it is. Whichever car you choose you to drive are no longer walking. No matter what beliefs you choose you are not a nihilist.
Difference is there is no other beliefs (as far as I’m concerned).
Not every hypothetical higher power includes the baked in idea of a hell.
Did I say that? Or was I strictly speaking from my perspective, and who are you to tell me what that is.
You believe in something you don't know right now.
What are you talking about? Many people know the concept of an afterlife (even nonbelievers) so how about you try again with making sense.
Nihilism has not helped you determine WHICH non nihilistic philosophy to imagine is true.
Yes it did and since I know me better than you do, I think I my word holds more weight than yours.
I'm asking where you got your ideas about hell. Who told you there was one and why did you believe them?
Actually you asked me why I have faith and I told you my answer as to why as of now.
You realize of course that if they had told you about buhda and nirvana instead you would now be a bhudist... statistically speaking
I think we have enough on our plate as of now, let’s not discuss statistics.
-->
@Tarik
Difference is there is no other beliefs (as far as I’m concerned).
This is laughable. Clearly there are other beliefs. I'm going to go ahead and disregard this.
Did I say that? Or was I strictly speaking from my perspective, and who are you to tell me what that is.
Would you please? Speak from your perspective I mean. You still haven't told me why you actually believe in hell only that you do.
What are you talking about? Many people know the concept of an afterlife (even nonbelievers) so how about you try again with making sense.
Concept and reality are two different beasts. I know of the concept of an afterlife. That doesn't mean I think there really is one. Not to mention the fact that there are after lives that don't include hell and they have equally good evidence to your proposal because zero and zero are equal. You don't know because you can't know because you are STILL ALIVE.
Try again.
You realize of course that if they had told you about buhda and nirvana instead you would now be a bhudist... statistically speakingI think we have enough on our plate as of now, let’s not discuss statistics.
What a good excuse you have given yourself not to address all my points. Good job. You are so good at making arguments for yourself that you will listen to. Still maybe you would engage with me.
-->
@secularmerlin
Clearly there are other beliefs.
Do you know what as far as I’m concerned means?
Concept and reality are two different beasts.
I never said they were the same.
Not to mention the fact that there are after lives that don't include hell and they have equally good evidence to your proposal because zero and zero are equal.
Every time you say this you give me the pleasure of asking the question, yet you still haven’t answered the call, so why bother going there again?
What a good excuse you have given yourself not to address all my points. Good job.
Thank you.
-->
@Tarik
Clearly there are other beliefs.Do you know what as far as I’m concerned means?
Yes it means subjectively.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is laughable.
So subjectivity is laughable?
I'm going to go ahead and disregard this.
You go right ahead.
The trolley problem. You have to kill at least one person. Killing is wrong. Thus in the Trolley problem, necessary evil exists.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Killing is neither necessarily wrong nor necessarily evil.
Wrong and evil are just assumptive constructs, exactly the same as right and good.
Subjective immorality or morality, as it were.
-->
@Tarik
So subjectivity is laughable?
Really I'm just referring to you burying your head in the sand like an ostrich in regards to other faiths.
Your faith is not special or noteworthy. Lots of people have faith in things they can't prove and most if not all of them think you are wrong.
-->
@secularmerlin
You mean like you and subjective morality? Your such a hypocrite.
-->
@Tarik
Let's stop calling it subjective or objective. There is just morality and it is an entirely human concern. It is entirely conceptual and entirely subjective BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN IT TO NE OTHERWISE.
Look we know people have opinions about what is right and what is wrong. That is not in question.
Same goes with other Faith's. Many people believe in things based only on faith and most of them will disagree with you about something. That is not in question.
-->
@secularmerlin
BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN IT TO NE OTHERWISE.
That argument works both ways buddy. Your such a hypocrite.
-->
@Tarik
That argument works both ways
That is why I'm not claiming anything that doesn't observably exist. You don't like calling it morality but the thing you call morality is fictional. So fine morality as defined by you is fictional and as defined by me is real but subjective.
The problem isn't demonstrating the proposition of morality as I define it it is your problem with the definition itself.
This is a you problem not a me problem. My only job is to communicate the idea and to show examples of it in reality and I have done that.
Try again.
-->
@secularmerlin
So fine morality as defined by you is fictional and as defined by me is real but subjective.
Unless you can cite a dictionary that supports it then no it’s not.
The problem isn't demonstrating the proposition of morality as I define it
What makes you think I care about the proposition of morality as you define it? What I care about is morality as it is, and it’s not subjective.
You try again.
-->
@Tarik
What makes you think I care about the proposition of morality as you define it?
Because you are a party to this conversation.
Unless you can cite a dictionary that supports it then no it’s not.
Firstly no I don't have to site a dictionary so long as I have a cogent definition to offer so try again
And secondly a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society is a common definition of morality included in many dictionaries (not that it really matters) so try again here too.
What I care about is morality as it is,
Particular systems of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society are what is. It is what we can observe and see and demonstrate.
IF morality is what it is and not what ONE of us wants it to be then it is AS DEFINED IN A DICTIONARY NOT THAT IT MATTERS necessarily subjective.
Why don't you forget about objecting to HOW the dictionary DEFINES morality and just talk about this other thing you have in mind.
You still haven't demonstrated that thing. If you don't then it is effectively a fantasy. A fiction you comfort yourself with. It would be super easy to change my mind about this if your thing could be DEMONSTRATED.
Why can't you show your thing? It almost seems like there is no thing. No thing that fits your definition. It is the definition of a fictional thing like the force in star wars. "Search your feelings, you know it to be true" is a terrible way to determine truth in real life.
-->
@3RU7AL
Fair enough, so instead I’ll say this I have no qualms with the definition rather I have qualms with the label of the definition, secularmerlin could’ve easily called what he was advocating for as a code of conduct and that would’ve been fine by me, but make no mistake just because you believe in a code of conduct that doesn’t make your code moral, it could mean your code is immoral, claiming otherwise requires proof which he hasn’t provided.
-->
@Tarik
I have no qualms with the definition
Then all your objections are nothing but attemptsnot to have the conversation.
-->
@secularmerlin
So what am I doing when NOW SAYING I don’t object to the definition only the label of it?
-->
@Tarik
Leys say for arguments sake THERE IS ONLY codes of conduct and NOTHING ELSE. Regardless of what we call those codes of conduct THEN WHAT? Why should we care? What difference does it make? And I only ask because THERE ARE ONLY CODES OF CONDUCT NOTHING MORE. We must agree on the goal before we can deem one better than the others. The goal is by necessity arbitrary. It is just something we agree is worth promoting IN OUR OPINIONS.
-->
@secularmerlin
And I only ask because THERE ARE ONLY CODES OF CONDUCT NOTHING MORE.
And I’m saying if you can’t prove your code to be better than a serial killers then your no different from me in regards to having faith in something you can’t prove, which is why I called you a hypocrite.
-->
@Tarik
can’t prove your code to be better
Better at what? On what metric are you measuring better? BETTER IS SUBJECTIVE. Without a goal there is no better. The universe has no apparent goal. To the universe one code is not better than another. That is part of why it is so important to have a real conversation about morality as it ACTUALLY IS rather than having a wishful thinking contest.
It is of the utmost importance to you in particular to have a conversation about WHY a serial killer should not be responsible for designing the code of conduct for your society if you don't want that to happen.
Unfortunately for your argument your idea of objective morality holds NO WATER for anyone who does not believe in god(s) or for anyone who believes in some god(s) other than your preferred idea of some god(s).
It would therefore be prudent to enter the conversation with some idea of what you actually want.
It is therefore less than prudent to base your argument on a standard you cannot define or some goal which has not been revealed or explained to you. That argument you cannot win with rational arguments.
I'm really glad you believe a thing that makes you comfortable and which doesn't confuse you but just being comfortable and uncomplicated isn't good enough for me. Real life is more nuanced and appealing to some god(s) DOES NOT make it less complicated.
-->
@Tarik
just because you believe in a code of conduct that doesn’t make your code moral
What standard would you compare and contrast a specific code-of-conduct with in order to determine its "morality-coefficient"?
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
I actually agree with Tarik on the point of Nihilism, hence why I like calling myself a nihilist.
If I'm right in my assumption of how he views subjective morality.
What I disagree with him on it though, is the implication of such a conclusion on humans.
A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.
Be 'rational in certain systems.
'I think.
-->
@secularmerlin
You know what, I want to change my response to a previous post of yours because I feel like we’re just gonna end up back where we started anyway.
If having emotions makes you irrational then we are both irrational.If it doesn't then just having emotions doesn't mean I am.Are we both irrational or are we both capable of being rational?You can say either but you can't say both.
Why are you asking me when your the one that brought irrationality into the equation? Instead I’ll return the question back to you, does having emotions make you irrational? If your answer is yes then by default your admitting that morality as you see it is irrational and if your admitting to that then we don’t have to go any further because that’s where you and I agree, so feel free to correct me where I’m wrong regarding your mentality.
-->
@3RU7AL
That’s a separate narrative that I don’t care to get into right now.
-->
@Lemming
A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.
Not nihilists by definition.