Moral Relativism

File: 481 KB, 599x427, 1590282374054.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Moral Relativism Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:50:34 2020 No.15763725 [Reply] [Original]

From a book on Moral Relativism, this passage explains how Native American children torture animals as part of normal play, while still understanding that animals feel pain:

>[Native American] children often catch birds and play with them by tying their legs, breaking them, and then pulling their wings off. [The children] do not regard animals as unconscious or insensitive; they rather regard them as closer to the human species than does the average white man

To avoid implications of racism, many authors have tried to justify this either by justifying the behaviour ("yeah it's bad but they lack the education to understand why it's bad") or resorting to relativism ("who are we to judge, there are no objective values").

But it seems to me that the obvious answer is that it is immoral to torture animals regardless of culture, and there is no excuse. Children are naturally immoral and their behaviour is not the product of some perverse environment. There need be no apologies for stating this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:53:17 2020 No.15763740 Friendly reminder that "that's relativism" is not an argument against relativism.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:54:28 2020 No.15763746

>>15763725
Tbf Japanese were okay w torturing another human not by seeing them as subhuman but as a human who bearing pain was noble but that's the idea. I'm not sure if it's a case of recognizing consciousness outside of pain continuum and on an honor one or something. It's horrid and backward and so on but it's better than some moral relativist handwaving explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:55:22 2020 No.15763750 >>15763740 Relativism doesn't offer any explanations. It simply states that because people disagree, then there can be no objective facts. But what if some of these people are wrong?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:56:09 2020 No.15763751 >>15763740 It is. Stating something is relativistic is to state you have no overarching theory except that man decides it. I could kill all men and wait for aliens to come up to it as well and they would so it's not in man. No overarching argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:57:31 2020 No.15763754 >>15763750 That's not moral relativism. Did you seriously just make a thread about moral relativism without any understanding of the thing you are against? >>15763751 What the fuck is wrong with this board.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:58:10 2020 No.15763758 The problem is the premise that children can't be immoral. Thank Rousseau for 300 years of this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:59:06 2020 No.15763764 The problem is trying to avoid being racist- The answer is being racist and stopping them from torturing animals

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 07:59:18 2020 No.15763767 >>15763754 It's literally the argument Mackie makes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:00:06 2020 No.15763769 >>15763754 Moral relativism is under relativism brainlet. You live in some discrete world where ontological relativism and moral relativism are entirely disjoint and one isn't asymmetrical to the other? Go read a book

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:02:11 2020 No.15763776

>>15763764
You know if I was racist against them and did whatever to get rid of them to stop them from torturing animals, I'd have to continue this spin the wheel genocide until all races were exterminated because what you're suggesting doesn't solve cruelty

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:04:36 2020 No.15763786 File: 145 KB, 600x600, FaceApp_1593704201833.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15763725 So are you a vegetarian than?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:06:11 2020 No.15763791 >>15763746 >Backward Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:06:15 2020 No.15763793 >>15763769 This is such an oversimplification. Learn to separate issues. What book would you have me read? I need to understand what made you spout this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:08:54 2020 No.15763804 File: 167 KB, 800x1366, 71WQGegFLtL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ''Who as a kid didnt enjoy squashing ants, then maybe bigger stuff.'' pic related Suce ma marde Rousseau.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:09:14 2020 No.15763805 >>15763791 That was clearly not the argument at all esl rw early 20's poster >>15763793 Nothing you're either smart enough to figure it out on your own or you're not. Read nietzsche and pretend that's your next pollack intellectual journey

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:09:16 2020 No.15763806 >>15763786 Torturing is different to killing. >>15763793 Not him but get to the point. How is that definition of moral relativism is wrong. Just state yours and move on.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:10:03 2020 No.15763808

>>15763786
Killing for survival while doing it quickly isn't comparable with torturing animals for the sake of fun. Daily reminder, Hitler loved his liver knödels despite all larping as vegetarian. Further reminder that dairy is far worse than meat, which you can get by simply killing, while milk an derivatives means you encage, inseminate and kill of their offspring for their whole life over and over again. No milk without calf schnitzels.

Now be gone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:10:17 2020 No.15763809 >>15763786 The idea here is torture moron but that would be ideal as well

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:11:41 2020 No.15763816

>>15763808
>Further reminder that dairy is far worse than meat, which you can get by simply killing, while milk an derivatives means you encage, inseminate and kill of their offspring for their whole life over and over again
Bro I never thought about it that way. What if I only ate meat and plants, but not eggs, milk, and cheese? What would I be then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:13:43 2020 No.15763826 >>15763816 The op was on torture tranny gtf back in pol

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:13:52 2020 No.15763827 File: 27 KB, 600x418, 1571522279864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How do moral realists argue against moral disagreements?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:14:58 2020 No.15763832 >>15763827 The same way anyone would who discusses it. It's either vapid self contradicting bs or not

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:21:04 2020 No.15763847

>>15763805
Ok, so you just wanted to namedrop the word "ontological".

>>15763806
I will get to the point. I'm not defending any brand of moral relativism. The claim I am defending is that moral relativism, like skepticism, is a stepping stone that people need to learn to overcome as part of the process of learning philosophy. A considerable portion of studying philosophy is overcoming those impasses where your thinking process leads you to a conclusion that you are unwilling to accept (for good reasons) but unable to reject. Overcoming the impasse in practice means no longer finding the arguments persuasive. Not overcoming the impasse in practice means you are still vulnerable to being pushed around, because you are still latently a relativist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:22:05 2020 No.15763852 >>15763827 Each one has a personal focus in his moral. Pragmatism, hedonism, etc. In the end, its all about my view is better than yours

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:25:01 2020 No.15763865 >>15763847 You literally called him wrong in his definition, and you still arent defending your “right” definition, you are deflecting.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:27:07 2020 No.15763875

>>15763847
Ontological means the nature of an object's being it is define by truth and truth by actual being. Ontology defines logic you get that w Russell's statement 'The king of france is bald'
If we assume there was a king of france
And he would have to be bald as a king of france then we can say it's valid in a loose sense in that it works logically, say in reference to a story book but it's not actually real. Logic can't determine what the validity of the objects that are inside them

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:31:21 2020 No.15763891 >>15763865 I am indeed deflecting because I'm not defending any "right" definition. I'm saying anon presented a strawman that nobody actually believes in. I still think nobody believes this, and I would be surprised if it turned out I'm wrong.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:31:25 2020 No.15763892

>>15763816
Eh, I don't care. I get my meat from a hunter and eggs with dairy from an organic farmer. The calfs can stick with their mother for the first couple weeks (unlike those in farm factories which get raised on stretched milk in literal garbage bins till slaughter day). and the animals can simply grass feed. veganism only come to mind in globohomo metropoly societies, which have lost any sense of natural life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:32:29 2020 No.15763896 >>15763891 Then stfu. Literally not proposing or defending means you never spoke so stfu

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:35:13 2020 No.15763908

>>15763891
Yes well you've been well wrong so far on almost every point you've made. If you aren't proposing a 'right' definition then you're not saying anything. Wat u mean to say is you think man is the measure of all things. If u read anything you'd at least know Plato's response in protagoras in which case you couldve developed a more nuanced view and not shit this board with your retroactive nazi philosophical opinions

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:37:36 2020 No.15763922 moral realism is literally magical thinking. if you're not religious, it makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:40:55 2020 No.15763935 >>15763896 I tried to limit the scope of my claims to avoid unnecessary hassles, so forgive me for being so evasive. I would rather not look like this>>15763908

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:42:42 2020 No.15763943 >>15763922 If you want to get a book from the library are there not ways you have to act to receive the books and ways you can't act to not get them? If so then there are forces external to you that decide your morals

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:43:44 2020 No.15763947 >>15763935 Yes because you'd look like you've read at least one book

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:45:25 2020 No.15763958

>>15763943
people tend to believe that "morals" are a real, separate thing distinct from mere rituals. we follow social guidelines in order to effect a certain result, but the general belief is that morals, as something above habit, demand adherence at all times.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:46:26 2020 No.15763959 >>15763725 >they rather regard them as closer to the human species than does the average white man What does this mean exactly? What do they mean by "closer"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:46:29 2020 No.15763960 >>15763922 Most philosophers are atheists and moral realists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:47:19 2020 No.15763965 >>15763922 If atheists can believe in laws of physics that govern the movement of matter, why could they not also believe in laws of ethics which govern how we ought to behave?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:48:39 2020 No.15763972 >>15763958 Yeah a ritual is distinct from morals in that it references one way of operating, not particularly any correct one, not any general ways you should operate

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:50:30 2020 No.15763983 >>15763776 >to stop the children from torturing animals, we must kill or severely injure them False premise, try again

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:51:23 2020 No.15763987 >>15763725 The simplest way to refute a moral relativist is to kill them.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:52:59 2020 No.15763992

>>15763960
>Most philosophers are atheists and moral realists.
source? i assume you are talking about "most philosophers today" not all time. probably a significant proportion, but i doubt "most".
>>15763965
describing material behaviours as "laws" is a useful anthropomorphism. unless you believe in a creator, why would there be moral laws akin in any way to physical laws? where would they come from? are they constraints imposed "from above"?
>>15763972
the library example isn't a very good argument for moral realism, since to be socially functional in say, native american society, might entail torturing animals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:54:17 2020 No.15764000 >>15763992 Why are there physical laws ? You take for granted objective, ubiquitous physics, but demand a reason for morals ? They are not as far apart as you imply

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:54:29 2020 No.15764002 >>15763725 >"who are we to judge, there are no objective values" This is an idiotic argument. By extention who are these people who argue "muh relativism" to criticise the critics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:56:13 2020 No.15764008 >>15763983 How does being racist stop them from doing anything? You can't be ethical within racism you are ethical outside of it. So I can try to teach them not to hurt animals and that has nothing to do w racism

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:56:27 2020 No.15764010 >>15763758 Not to mention the less technological and civilised are inherently more moral. Fuck rousseau

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:58:32 2020 No.15764023

>>15764000
>You take for granted objective, ubiquitous physics
I don't take that for granted at all. that is why i am reticent to describe them as "laws". there are conceivable situations in our universe where the laws of physics could change. a vacuum metastability event for instance.

physical laws apply to matter. moral laws seem to apply to conscious agents. why would they be tehre if they were not produced by a conscious agent?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 08:58:34 2020 No.15764024 >>15763847 Fucking hell if you couldn't give your definition then just say so. This is pathetic.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:09:47 2020 No.15764096

>>15763808
>Killing for survival while doing it quickly isn't comparable with torturing animals for the sake of fun
Are you eating meat in order to survive, or because you like the taste? Could you not chose to eat plants instead? Is pleasure from fun that different from pleasure from taste? Very few people in the west eat meat because they must. Just putting some thoughts out there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:10:31 2020 No.15764098 >>15763908 You're arguing against at least 3 different people, and you refuse to point out why anyone is wrong. Honestly give up. We're talking about moral relativism in the 21st century not fucking protagoras.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:18:18 2020 No.15764149 >>15763987 Moral relativism isn't prescriptive, it's a meta-ethical system. Just because there are no objective morals doesn't mean we should behave how we want.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:19:47 2020 No.15764160 >>15764096 Humans need meat for proper nutrition. We like meat because we need it. read the paper and don't peter me with retarded veganism. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EPyssWASiOuNurbc2FyibL-5ZK1wwPEPMuTbjzD-auw/edit?usp=sharing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:21:43 2020 No.15764175 >>15764024 I already explained myself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:27:39 2020 No.15764211 We are falling into a moral abyss. Who will save us?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:28:00 2020 No.15764217 >>15764175 You did everything except give a definition of a term which you claimed another anon got wrong. That's all you had to do and yet you refused, showing yourself for the emotional retard that you are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:46:21 2020 No.15764313 >>15764160 Nutrition is irrelevant to ethics. I'm not even vegan because I don't think killing animals is wrong, but your argument is the antithesis of philosophical thought.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:48:34 2020 No.15764320 >>15764217 I give myself permission to assert basic facts, and anyone that disagrees does not live in the same reality as me. I would much rather spend the time explaining why I insist on playing by my rules, because at least you could understand that.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:55:03 2020 No.15764354

>>15764313
There is no philosophie regarding basic facts. I doen't matter what would be nice, when our biology tells us that there is no alternative.

Food doesn't need to be pleasurable, but it's pleasures would at least be linked with beneficial outcomes. Meanwhile tourturing animals, by the hands of children, is if anyting a sign of a psychopathic race.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 09:58:24 2020 No.15764368 >>15763725 Glad we took our country away from those savages.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:16:19 2020 No.15764452 >>15764149 Interesting.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:31:09 2020 No.15764541

>>15763806
>>15763808
>>15763809
The problem here is that torture is considered de facto bad for you but you're also giving a de facto pass to killing and rearing animals as is common to your cultural background. The idea that torture is bad and even what constitutes torture, coupled with the idea that man is not the apex predator and one of the main environmental impacts on all species but rather something benevolent and moral by nature, are culturally enforced views rather than anything with a basis in fact. People believe breaking a leg is awful but eating the same leg is fine. They like excuses like "it was a quick kill" but then try to argue that suicide for humans is awful. It's not consistent because it's based in an animal desire for comfort- just as maggots crawl inside a corpse for comfort, humans crawl inside a fantasy that makes a stack of chicken bones better than a battery farm, a steak better than a dairy cow, and humans less immoral than a cat. Arguing there is something moral about humanity's survival above another animal's is usually as weak an argument as arguing the same thing for any other species' survival. Dingos aren't being immoral when they eat your baby: they're arguably saving the planet.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:40:21 2020 No.15764572

>>15764541
>are culturally enforced views rather than anything with a basis in fact.
Empathy levels differ by race, not only culture. Some races have more psychopathic traits and those show first in their disregard to the pain inflicted on lower animals.

Suicide has literally completely different reassons to be tabo. It's mor often than not an act of sontanious desperation, which can easily be overcome when sane again. Further running away from your problems enabled socio-toxic behaviour, like a pedophiles hanging himself in jail. Meanwhile an animal has no capability to overcome such problems, which is why we euthanize pets and not our seniors. Don't try to play psychologist and excuse degenerate behaviour when you dont even have a basic gestalt on the topic on hand.

>reee humans bad
>matrix was right
>why nobody allow to end myself
Geh mit Gott, aber geh.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:40:26 2020 No.15764573 >>15764354 >when our biology tells us that there is no alternative. Our biology tells us many irrational things. Unless you're an ape you move on from listening to pure desire.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:41:54 2020 No.15764580 >>15764573 Our biology tells us what is right, your overthinking shit makes you simply come to the wrong conclusions.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:42:57 2020 No.15764585

>>15764541
>Dingos aren't being immoral when they eat your baby: they're arguably saving the planet.
This is true and I'm not supporting some weird anthropocentric view of ethics, I'm just arguing within the context of human morality: how do you reconcile moral realism (i.e. not relativism) with disagreements between Westerners and Native Americans over basic issues?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:43:58 2020 No.15764589 >>15764580 >my conclusions are right because my intuition tells me so Gonna have to try a bit harder bro

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:46:58 2020 No.15764603 >>15764589 You're the one making up shit. If what we lust for wouldn't be evolutionary beneficial, it wouldn't be still with us. And now be gone, brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:48:34 2020 No.15764609 >>15764603 You're very very bad at philosophy and unwilling to find out why, preferring instead to trust gut feelings and avoid challenges. Smell ya later!

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:55:17 2020 No.15764650
File: 236 KB, 676x722, power.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15763725
I find the idea of relativism unconvincing. I think there really is a set of base acceptable behaviors and then a superstructure of belief and ideology which can render actions permissible or unpermissible against the grain of core morality. Power justifies itself as easily as you breath, but it can't change every fundamental truth. It still has to grapple with a real moral center which exists in humans. Sociopaths are proof that it exists by their very exceptional nature.

The reason he brings up kids torturing animals and not adults is precisely because children are not morally developed beings. I've seen lots of children torture animals in my time, I think it's actually pretty common.

Of course I don't want to imply that "real, objective" morals are consistent or even possible to have without additionally having a moral superstructure which is more arbitrary, but there is an obviousness to certain moral judgements which don't require justification. Killing, for example, always requires context and justification, in each and every culture, even when the justification sounds evil to us, it is still done, and in those cases especially can be long and protracted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 10:55:22 2020 No.15764651 File: 65 KB, 500x356, 1568711730777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15764609 >let me disregard facts to talk about my delusions

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:14:06 2020 No.15764743

>>15764651
Not that dude but there's a great deal of writing to be seen about why what you're trying to argue is a meaningless dead-end. The naturalistic fallacy has nothing to tell us and in fact only leads as far as the arguer cares to take it, leaving aside all inconvenient facts and behaviors of nature.

I will say since you're making the argument in a way that indicated you're emotionally close to the subject that it's extremely likely you eat orders of magnitude more meat than any human being from almost any part of history or prehistory (with some noted examples). The span between maybe four million years ago to maybe fifty thousand years ago, the proto-human creature's diet from whom we inherit our guts, seems to have been overwhelmingly a diet of fruit, and while you're not wrong to say they needed meat, the prey sources would have been small mammals, rat-size creatures and birds. Something more of a vitamin snack than a staple food.

Anyway we're opportunistic eaters with really crazy digestive systems and we certainly can survive perfectly well being vegetarian, as long as you still eat eggs.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:19:21 2020 No.15764772

>>15764743
>emotional
Nothing of that short, I just hate relativists.

>you eat orders of magnitude more meat than any human being from almost any part of history or prehistory
I don't eat more than 65% of my calories from animal sources, which is the average for paleolithic humans, meaning the ideal for us modern northern europeans.

>proto-human creature's diet from whom we inherit our guts, seems to have been overwhelmingly a diet of fruit
>Something more of a vitamin snack than a staple food
>we certainly can survive perfectly well being vegetarian
People illiterate in the actual archeological, biological and whatever papers should not try to open their mouths on such topics. I already provided multiple meta studies. Ignorance isn't sexy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:20:24 2020 No.15764779

“Northern Hunter Gatherer carb intake less than 15% of total energy, varies racially”
>In this study, it was hypothesized that diets of modern hunter-gatherers vary in their carbohydrate content depending on ecoenvironments. Thus, using data of plant-to-animal subsistence ratios, we calculated the carbohydrate intake (percentage of the total energy) in 229 hunter-gatherer diets throughout the world and determined how differences in ecological environments altered carbohydrate intake. We found a wide range of carbohydrate intake (≈3%-50% of the total energy intake; median and mode, 16%-22% of the total energy). Hunter-gatherer diets were characterized by an identical carbohydrate intake (30%-35% of the total energy) over a wide range of latitude intervals (11°-40° north or south of the equator). However, with increasing latitude intervals from 41° to greater than 60°, carbohydrate intake decreased markedly from approximately equal to 20% to 9% or less of the total energy. Hunter-gatherers living in desert and tropical grasslands consumed the most carbohydrates (≈29%-34% of the total energy). Diets of hunter-gatherers living in northern areas (tundra and northern coniferous forest) contained a very low carbohydrate content (≤15% of the total energy). In conclusion, diets of hunter-gatherers showed substantial variation in their carbohydrate content. Independent of the local environment, however, the range of energy intake from carbohydrates in the diets of most hunter-gatherer societies was markedly different (lower) from the amounts currently recommended for healthy humans.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531711000911
https://web.archive.org/web/20190514120029/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531711000911

“Hunter Gatherers got 68% of their calories from animal products, seasonally resp. more”
>In this review we have analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n=229HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of meat-based diets in our species.
https://www.nature.com/articles/1601353
https://web.archive.org/web/20190514095546/https://www.nature.com/articles/1601353

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:21:26 2020 No.15764786

“Stature and robusticity decline during the transition to agricultural life”
>In this study, we examined the evidence of stature reduction in studies since 1984 to evaluate if the trend towards decreased health after agricultural transitions remains. The trend towards a decrease in adult height and a general reduction of overall health during times of subsistence change remains valid, with the majority of studies finding stature to decline as the reliance on agriculture increased.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X11000402
https://web.archive.org/web/20190421104050/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X11000402

“Farming to blame for our shrinking size and brains“
>Looking at human fossil evidence for the past 200,000 years, Lahr looked at the size and structure of the bones and skulls found across Europe, Africa and Asia. What they discovered was that the largest Homo sapiens lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago with an average weight between 176 and 188 pounds and a brain size of 1,500 cubic centimeters.They discovered that some 10,000 years ago however, size started getting smaller both in stature and in brain size. Within the last 10 years, the average human size has changed to a weight between 154 and 176 pounds and a brain size of 1,350 cubic centimeters. While large size remained static for close to 200,000 years, researchers believe the reduction in stature can be connected to a change from the hunter-gatherer way of life to that of agriculture which began some 9,000 years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190421104116/https://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html

“Big brained people are smarter”
>The relationship between brain volume and intelligence has been a topic of a scientific debate since at least the 1830s. To address the debate, a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence was conducted. Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The correlation is higher for females than males. It is also higher for adults than children. For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604001357

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:22:40 2020 No.15764798

“Prehistorical men increased in height due to surplus of high-quality protein and low populational density”
>While Gravettian men stood between five foot ten inches and six foot two inches, Maya people from the same era only reached an average height of five foot two inches.
>He said: 'I suspect that this big game specialization associated with a surplus of high-quality proteins and low population density created environmental conditions leading to the selection of exceptionally tall males.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4404824/Genes-tallness-prehistoric-mammoth-hunters.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190421104241/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4404824/Genes-tallness-prehistoric-mammoth-hunters.html

“Higher consumption of animal protein, esp. Milk and Pork correlates with increased height in Europeans”
>A new study reports on genetic and environmental influences on height from 42 European countries, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. The strongest predictor of adult male height was dietary protein consumption, specifically the “protein index.”
>Taller populations had a higher proportion of dietary protein from animal sources, especially milk and pork, compared to vegetable sources. Increasing high quality animal protein intake during childhood may have positive impacts on growth and population health outcomes.
http://milkgenomics.org/article/milk-protein-diet-predicts-human-height/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190421104618/http://milkgenomics.org/article/milk-protein-diet-predicts-human-height/

“Height is a great indicator for health and agriculture reduced both”
>Archaeologists often use height as a proxy to indicate health because malnutrition and other health problems have an enormous impact on it. In the Upper Paleolithic, European males had an average height of about 5’10”, but the height for males in the Neolithic Linear Band Pottery Culture dropped five inches, to just 5’5”. Perhaps most importantly, average male height remained in the range from 5’5”-5’7” through the end of the nineteenth century.(Hermanussen, 2003) While of course agricultural populations struggled to recover from the catastrophic impact that the Agricultural Revolution had on their health, only in the twentieth century — with the sort of breakthroughs that fossil fuels could provide — could Europeans finally close the gap and reach the sort of health and longevity enjoyed by their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190421104800/http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

For starters.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:22:45 2020 No.15764799

>>15764585
>how do you reconcile moral realism (i.e. not relativism) with disagreements between Westerners and Native Americans over basic issues?
You don't.
>>15764572
>Empathy levels differ by race, not only culture. Some races have more psychopathic traits and those show first in their disregard to the pain inflicted on lower animals
>this test written by one culture is totally not going to bias the cultural standards for empathy to that culture
>Also plz ignore most cultures with such tests and standards have been recording internal cultural declines in empathy since fifty years ago
>Also here are some asspulls involving human exceptionalism and a random reference to the matrix
K

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:24:13 2020 No.15764805 >>15763740 tautological circularity is an argument against relativism though. for example: >X is bad because X is bad (moral relativism) there's no transcendental presupposition why X is bad here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:26:51 2020 No.15764811 This whole thread has convinced me that autists should not be allowed to participate in philosophy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:27:54 2020 No.15764819

>>15764772
>Nothing of that short, I just hate relativists.
me too friend
your claim about Hunter-Gatherers is valid but those weren't the creatures to whom I referred when I gave my time-frame. Unless you're referring to Neanderthals in which case I don't know what people currently think. You sound extremely committed to your diet.
For the record naturalistic philosophy is nearly as bad as relativism.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:28:41 2020 No.15764822

>>15764805
meanwhile transcendental ethics, allows for a common point of discussion rather than an arbitrary tautological one.

if I say, "X is right/wrong because of God", than at least we can talk about God and develop a dialectic there for the Truth.
but if you stick with moral relativism, no meaningful dialectic can be developed as it is philosophically arbitrary due to is circular justification.

hence why using a transendental underpinning is preferable due to it's coherency and engageability.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:30:23 2020 No.15764836

>>15764811
yeah I wish people would stop reading Kant
>>15764798
stop posting, it wouldn't matter if the healthiest thing for human beings was blood infusions from toddlers (And it might actually be so), it would still be deeply immoral to do. Indeed, if you don't believe it is possible that some moral obligations are harmful to your health, and yet still morally necessary, then you're a nihilist, and filth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:30:45 2020 No.15764837 >>15763758 Children are much more beasts than adults, they act according to impulses and that's all. Would that make them monsters or extempt from morality?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:32:12 2020 No.15764847

>>15764819
>but those weren't the creatures to whom I referred when I gave my time-frame
Our gut to boy length ratio comes straight from the paleolithic gus, so what are you talking about (from memory sheep are at 1:21, cats 1:3 and humans are at 1:4-6 - so pretty clearly not fine on vegs only). Modern humans are Paleolithic people+lactase. It's not even my diet, I just hate globohomo vegans and on average people which talk about shit which they don't understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:32:25 2020 No.15764848 File: 112 KB, 980x653, varg-vikernes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15764798 >>15764786 >>15764779 >>15764772 t. Aspergers sufferer

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:32:46 2020 No.15764857 >>15764799 Further reading on evidence of declining empathy? I'm interested

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:33:36 2020 No.15764862 >>15764836 >it would still be deeply immoral to do getting infant blood transfusion isn't healthy for humans, only for individuals. For the population such practices are disgenic and suicidal. Your examples are shit and so is your ideology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:34:38 2020 No.15764872 File: 46 KB, 1024x760, W0H0urUZLAmdJMQ78WBzt1LvFdWzbtfYD32c6KVzSYg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15764848 At your service.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:35:18 2020 No.15764875 >>15764862 You have no idea what I believe. I'm not arguing for relativism, I'm arguing against naturalism, which is nearly as bad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:36:39 2020 No.15764881 >>15764875 I follow neither but stikc to what we actually know by data and history, instead of making up some shit to feel better.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:42:14 2020 No.15764913

>>15764881
nutrition isn't morality. There's no reason someone can't be a vegan in modern times with the help of (fundamentally unnatural but not evil) supplements. I would never do it. I eat meat. But if you're against making shit up why act like it's impossible to survive on a vegan diet in 2020 when it's objectively being done? It just seems like you have a weird spergy agenda.
I certainly think it's healthier and better to eat meat, especially if you're lucky enough to have evidence about what the diet best for your body is. But the reality is that most meat eaters in the West eat shitloads of meat, often gorging themselves on meals entirely made of fried meat. There's nothing wholesome or natural about that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:42:39 2020 No.15764918 File: 47 KB, 639x614, 4caee6f13c52bc77f97d69634736f625-imagejpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15763827 That's the proof in the pudding tho no?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:46:18 2020 No.15764940

>>15764913
You still can't stay healthy on a vegan diet becaue we aren't able to synthesize half the shit we need and don't even really know what we need. Just to remind you retards that essentia omega 3 can't be transformed from plant sources in any relevant amount. But go for it, it leads to lowered fertility and is natural eugenics for self-destructive human traits.

Western europeans don't eat "shittons" of meat, they eat small amounts of processed meats. Which are full of shit. Seasonally eating nothing but animals product is much more natural than not eating any at all.

“The modern westerner consumes only around 20% animal-sourced foods, unlike his hunter gatherer forefather which consumed it at 75%.”
>FIG. 2. Percentage of energy in food supply from animal-source foods

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:47:52 2020 No.15764941

>>15764857
If you look up empathy decline on Google you'll get a lot of stuff. Sherry Turkle has a few books and lecture tours on linking it to the internet age, but it's been going on longer than that. She did start out by popularising the internet though so that might play some part.
Japan has a lot of studies on a decline too, but obviously empathy standards in the 70s in the US and Japan are different starting points.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:48:05 2020 No.15764943

>>15764881
Furthermore the PIE speakers are probably the single greatest human population ever to exist in terms of their relative dominance of those around them. That dominance rests with their adoption of a novel foodsource the human body clearly wasn't adapted well to, namely milk. We have adaptable digestive systems. I think the arguments about the source of the macro-nutrients and vitamins we need are meaningless, as long as you're getting them the source seems irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:48:50 2020 No.15764948 >>15763725 And then leftists try to make me feel guilty because my ancestors took these savages land?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:49:56 2020 No.15764954

This is surprising to hear, since there is a common assumption that natives are closer to nature than us, but this just proves that they are no different than us. They also treat nature and other life as their inferior. Also moralizing is a very weak thing to do. You aren't a moral authority of any sort, why do you pretend to be? You have no way you can judge the actions of another person unless you could see inside their head. It's easy to think abstractly about what you would have done and how you are morally superior, but that only exists in your head and nowhere else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:50:34 2020 No.15764958 >>15764940 >Lower fertility Ah yes, my diet is what keeping me from having children, not the abject terror the mere thought of children give me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:51:03 2020 No.15764963 Utter retardation, as always with these moral relativists. >B-but, Native American children can't do complex matrices; mathematics must be relative!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:51:19 2020 No.15764966 >>15764958 mindcuck

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:51:32 2020 No.15764969
File: 431 KB, 1016x720, 1560567903959.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15763725
That's a tricky one because there's no strong relation between morality and torturing birds. Morality really just consists of the traffic rules for a social or eusocial animal, the natural taboos you must have to live effectively together. The taboo against murder reappears as a crime in every civilization, tribe and gang that has ever existed, because a group which murders each other cannot function. "Don't kill within the group;" that is the ancient taboo of murder. You can tell that morality consists of traffic rules by seeing that morality appears in much less intelligent animals, in very similar forms, and that certain critical morals are always the same, but other "fashion" morals can be very different even if they're viewed as just as important. People mistake the pull of instinct as the indication of the divine, but it's nothing more than adaptation. You instinctively cringe away from murder because if you didn't, your people wouldn't have made it this far.

Torturing birds is only an icky moral issue. The instinct of the kindness-oriented eusocial Westerner is that torturing birds is wrong, and the emotional charge of the word "torture" should make you feel what I mean. It is both our instinct and our custom to cringe away from the act of inflicting pain on other creatures, and doubly so if there's no apparent benefit to inflicting pain. We'll cringe away from torturing Muslim terrorists who want us all dead, of course we'll cringe when we see children ripping apart birds just to feel the flesh between their fingers. Our cringe on this issue is a result of thousands of years of adaptation to living in densely packed agrarian areas where everything belongs to someone and the desire to destroy randomly is disadvantageous. It's a bad desire to have in the traffic of civilization. But for the American Indians, it's not really that bad. Enjoying the death of small animals has, at worst, no impact on their likelihood of making it. And at best, a willingness to inflict death on innocent things for your own benefit prepares them for a life of hunting.

Rationalizing on this will just lead to madness. The logical arguments go all ways, and pursued to their ends the foundations rest on thin air. But that doesn't really matter to you, does it? You still don't like it. If you could, you would make them stop. And it's only due to your competing interest in Live and Let Live (another eusocial Westerner instinct) that you even feel compelled to debate over whether it's right to make them stop. A mere few centuries ago, your ancestors would've just beaten it out of them, with no qualms. They hadn't yet developed a Prime Directive custom.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:52:18 2020 No.15764972 >>15764966 Yes, I've been brainwashed by the media to believe in freedom above all else. Joke on them, if I had kids I would be a better consumer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:53:08 2020 No.15764976 So you are a vegan right? You want factory farming abolished right? Otherwise by your moral standards you are even worse you fucking hypocrite.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:54:15 2020 No.15764983

>>15764943
>source of the macro-nutrients and vitamins we need are meaningless, as long as you're getting them the source seems irrelevant.
Theoretically yes, practically no. Their concentrations are relevant in relation to each other, plus eve just meat consists of much more than the _known_ parts of the sum. We are far away from even knowing how to fully recreate a steak without actually grassing a cow. Even industrial farm animals lead to a shitty diet, because we feed them shit. Trying to synthetize all those things sometimes in the far away futur, would only be usefull if we sould be unable to simply let a cow eat grass. And at that point the Asgard-Problem arises and leads to the question if we will survive long term dependant on a highly synthetc technological system.

>>15764958
A deficient nutrition also leads to higher anxiety. Try to suplement nutritional yeast for nerv calming B-Vitamins.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:55:51 2020 No.15764992

>>15763725
>But it seems to me that the obvious answer is that it is immoral to torture animals regardless of culture
How can it seem that way to you? Does their culture label it immoral? If not then it is not immoral within their cultural context. Just yours.
>Children are naturally immoral and their behaviour is not the product of some perverse environment.
So this objective moral reality that you have access to is explicitly unnatural and foreign to human beings. That's fine, but it's hardly evidence.

>There need be no apologies for stating this.
Certainly not. You're stating your perspective of moral truths grounded in your particular culture. You don't have to apologize for that, but you do look pretty stupid not being able to see the difference between cultural "facts" and objective facts.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:58:23 2020 No.15765006

>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
I don't want to hear any of your cope and pseudoscience from your mom blogs and disingenuous studies funded by the meat and dairy industry.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 11:59:19 2020 No.15765010

>>15764963
There are different ways humans can develop physically different views of the world based on their cultural exposure. Learning a different language will change your brain in a measurable way, can change your eyes in a measurable way, and can make you less prone to certain optical and spatial illusions.
For an example which doesn't involve language: westerners fall for the Muller Lyer illusion of "which line is longer?" but hunter gatherers do not. That's probably because of exposure to carpented corners, because hunter gatherers seem to become prone to the illusion once exposed to more modern settlements more often.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:01:46 2020 No.15765031
File: 305 KB, 300x182, 1592576789593.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15765006
>let me quote a source which has been the main reason people have been poisoned by the food pyramid fraud to disprove all available data
Eat your plant slime and abstain from reproduction. My children and granchildren send their regards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:04:55 2020 No.15765049 >>15764983 >Asgard-Problem What's this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:05:59 2020 No.15765055 >>15764969 fuck off this is a vegetarian vs meat eater thread now

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:09:14 2020 No.15765071

>>15765049
In the Sci-Fi show Stargate, the Asgard are a highly evolved race of aliens which in their goal to improve themselves and their society became dependant on artificial reproduction and after losing their ability to use the necessary technology to create progeny they faced extinction. Similarly to how cesaria births, saving mother and child, cuts the curling of women with hips too narrow, crating whole population in thenear future which can't survive birth without medial intervention.

Technological solutions are always a cope and dangerous in the long run, as we make ourselves dependant on artificial constructs, easily undermined.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:09:28 2020 No.15765073

Surely there must be some way to see if a moral system is 'good' or 'bad'? Maybe a better term would be bankrupt.
Because otherwise what's the point? You can say turning the world into a corporate hellscape is ok because the only virtue is money. Or you can have purges because it cleans out aggressions. And they are all moral and good because the society views it as such.
There must be some way, some set of tools, we can look at a culture and tell if it is rotten. Otherwise I'll just close my eyes, because there is nothing to look with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:14:19 2020 No.15765105 >>15765049 "I mean, all they wanted to do was live a little longer. We're no different. Sequence DNA. Cure diseases. One fatal mistake, and they doom their entire race."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:20:23 2020 No.15765138 File: 53 KB, 635x1000, MV5BMTgwMDcyMTkwMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzc2NjAxNQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,635,1000_AL_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15765073 stop talking about this shit, this is a Stargate thread now

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:22:02 2020 No.15765150 File: 320 KB, 250x136, indeed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15765138

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:29:29 2020 No.15765198 File: 16 KB, 578x433, 322427B9-2BC4-4CF0-BC3B-1D55331974F1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] when will they learn

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:35:23 2020 No.15765228 >>15764969 I would beat it out of them. They are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:41:04 2020 No.15765252 >>15765228 >They are wrong. define wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:41:32 2020 No.15765255 >>15765252 >define wrong No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:42:18 2020 No.15765257 >>15765255 there’s a large void in your ideology and you don’t care to address it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:43:03 2020 No.15765261 >>15765257 I care to beat people that disagree with me.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:45:21 2020 No.15765272
File: 86 KB, 915x1056, 1592776642696.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15763725
>To avoid implications of racism, many authors have tried to justify this either by justifying the behaviour ("yeah it's bad but they lack the education to understand why it's bad") or resorting to relativism ("who are we to judge, there are no objective values").
"If there are no objective values, anti-racism isn't an objective value."
"Why are we adhering to it, then?"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:45:59 2020 No.15765277 >>15763725 desu the way we treat slaughterhouse animals isn't much better. It might even be worse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:46:34 2020 No.15765280 >>15765261 what if you disagree with yourself later on?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 12:48:17 2020 No.15765295 >>15765280 So what if I do? Doesn't seem like anything to worry about.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:03:29 2020 No.15765365 >>15765277 Stop watching Peta propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:12:09 2020 No.15765409 >>15765295 then it might be the case that you’ve beaten people up who have the same view as your later self. So you shouldn’t always resort to immediately beating people up because you currently disagree with them

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:13:17 2020 No.15765414 >>15765409 >So you shouldn’t always resort to immediately beating people up because you currently disagree with them Why?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:25:54 2020 No.15765501 >>15764313 Are you shitting me? Well, let's all die from shit poor nutrition because it's not on the moral dimension, I guess.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:31:24 2020 No.15765536

>>15764603
That only works as an explanation om the ultimate/evolutionary level. Yes, it cam be insightful, but all the same our modern societies have changed drastically, so fast that there is good reason the general social environment homo sapiens adapted to is not fully reflected in most if not all modern societies, mainly due to technological but also cultural advancements. It's not a coincidence people get stressed the hell out by circumstances related to automobiles in one way or another and have to bring in tools outside of intuition to combat their distress (such as knowledge of it so they can disrupt bad stress patterns).

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:36:26 2020 No.15765566

>>15765536
Well, technology isn't beneficial. We seek out technology to cather to our actual goal of more efficient food production for example. Making food more efficient is evolutionary beneficial, the ways in which we might do it aren't always. For example onions green might be efficient, but the societal consequences will fuck the population up. Same goes for technorcratic nations. As you said, we haven't and can't follow up with this modern world but this also means that evolution will take care. those populations which haven't embraced the technological slavery will prevail and give those beneficial antitech sentiments on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:38:20 2020 No.15765576 >>15765414 you’ve probably never beat anyone up for simply disagreeing with you, so this is pointless. You’re a a hypocrite

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:39:54 2020 No.15765583 >>15765576 No, I don't engage in violence over simple disagreements. I beat people that commit egregious wrongdoings.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:46:38 2020 No.15765627 >>15764772 >it's another paleofantasy retard talking out of his ass

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:49:15 2020 No.15765643 >>15764954 >You aren't a moral authority of any sort, why do you pretend to be? Ummm because he wants animals to stop being fucking abused?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:52:56 2020 No.15765665

>>15764969
This ignores the concept of pain. The prohibition on inflicting pain on another being is not some social rule or etiquette against taboo. It's a universal law. If you understand that the other being experiences pain, and you presumably know what pain feels like, it would be a cognitive error on your part (lacking empathy, psychopathy) to still do it. It's not madness to rationalise here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:53:59 2020 No.15765674 >>15765627 >talking out of his ass I guess you're unable to understand basic scientific abstracts?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:55:18 2020 No.15765689

>>15764976
We've already been through this. The whole thread is about veganism now.

>>15764992
>Certainly not. You're stating your perspective of moral truths grounded in your particular culture
Birds feel pain just like any other being. If you're a psychopath then moral relativism is justifiable, but then you'd be on the same moral plane as an animal. Otherwise, reason and empathy clearly imply that torture is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 13:58:20 2020 No.15765716 >>15765583 >I beat people that commit egregious wrongdoings. suuuuuure okay

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 14:15:45 2020 No.15765818

>>15765272
I think the relativist argument is that the sentiments we bear are the product of circumstance, and at this time, the circumstances are such that 'racism' is not accepted. It's impossible to argue with relativists. Basically they'll say that their own moral attitudes are relativistic to the culture they're in.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 14:17:27 2020 No.15765826

There is no argument, even if your retarded society likes and encourages pain, animals dislike pain and try to flee from it, and forcing a living being to do something it doesnt want its inmoral (Even more when theres absolutely no profit or gain like food or work) i

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 14:21:07 2020 No.15765856

Descriptive Relativism really says nothing of significance. Metaethical relativism seems, to me, false on the basis that it's pushing its own belief of the world, that is to say, that a positive statement is being affirmed of the fundamental nature of things. Isn't it a moral truth in of itself? Normative relativism is also retarded because all cultures have some underlying common moral beliefs. Certain things are wrong a priori, thus we ought not to be tolerant of all perspectives due to moral realism. We can find moral truths via a dialectical process, wherein we rely on reason (or things like the Categorical Imperative) to arrive at moral conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 14:40:32 2020 No.15765986 >>15765501 congratulations, you've forwarded a moral argument about nutrition, instead of a nutritional argument for morality. See the difference? Probably not you fucking brainlet.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 15:46:53 2020 No.15766403

>>15765689
>Otherwise, reason and empathy clearly imply that torture is wrong.
Only clearly that's NOT true, because there are so many historical and cultural contexts where specific kinds of torture and torture for specific reasons were and are considered morally acceptable. Just because you (or even most people alive today) feel strongly about something doesn't make it the truth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 15:55:49 2020 No.15766468 >>15766403 Torture only have been acceptable for a greater good, never for the fun of it. That is, in actual sapiens.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:04:11 2020 No.15766544

>>15766468
That's only true if "a greater good" includes things like practice, desensitization to the suffering of an enemy or prey, bizarre superstitions, intimidation, blowing off steam against others whose feelings are unimportant (criminals, heretics, foreigners, pest animals, mouthy women, mouthy servants, etc.)
The specific this thread is about could easily fall into several of those categories if kids are expected to grow up to hunt and fight.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:10:14 2020 No.15766596

>>15766544
If the point of morality is to develop yourself for your goals more (vs group ethics or perhaps not exclusive to them) then making universal claims based on out groups is contradictory. If your goal is to become more sociable but make that contingent on 'hunting' then promoting torture in general contradicts that on a biological level. In a pragmatic example no marketplaces allow stealing. Or cities don't allow murder (or open killing). Making your morals (which must be made w universal claims) then making them contingent makes contradictions. Moral relativism is formally and foundationally vacuous

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:11:10 2020 No.15766603

>>15765856
>We can find moral truths via a dialectical process, wherein we rely on reason (or things like the Categorical Imperative) to arrive at moral conclusions.
literally no philosopher (or anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes doing philosophy in the 21st century) still thinks this. the categorical imperative is an interesting relic.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:12:15 2020 No.15766615

>>15764541
>the idea that man is not the apex predator
I think its a pretty common idea that man is the apex predator, what are you on about?
>humans less immoral than a cat
I don't think I've ever heard someone call a cat immoral. Yes, they find it shocking at cats torture their pray, but they usually just accept that its a cat.
>Arguing there is something moral about humanity's survival above another animal's
We're humans, retard. Do you really expect the rest of the human species to be as suicidal as you?
>>15764651
What fucking facts have you brought up? If anything he was dismissing an argument from feels.
>>15763965
>If atheists can believe in laws of physics that govern the movement of matter, why could they not also believe in laws of ethics which govern how we ought to behave?
One has effects in our reality that we can observe, the other is some invisible woo-woo. You can watch a ball fall down, and make up a term "gravity" to describe how it falls. You can watch human behavior and see its all over the place, with Euros eating cows and saying the Chinese are evil for eating dogs, and Indians saying the Euros are obviously evil for eating cows, etc. and all of this is the word of humans, never shown to be something innate in nature.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:15:03 2020 No.15766640

>>15766403
>Just because you (or even most people alive today) feel strongly about something doesn't make it the truth.
I am not arguing about whether the statement "torture is wrong" is true or false. Moral statements don't have truth values, and if they did I wouldn't care. I am saying that if you can experience pain, and willing do something that causes someone else pain, then you've done something immoral. You can be excused if you're a psychopath or retarded, but if you're human with a functioning brain, you know it's immoral. Morality doesn't require proofs like geometry or whatever the fuck sort of evidence you're after.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:16:56 2020 No.15766658

>>15766603
You're telling me that no philosophers treat moral dilemmas as something of a problem to be solved logically? What then is Deontology or Consequentialism? Are they not theories using logic to attempt to find the most optimal moral practice (deontology by action and consequentialism by calculability)?

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:28:43 2020 No.15766744

>>15766596
Babble. Intuitional nonsense not founded on anything.
>>15766640
>I am saying that if you can experience pain, and willing do something that causes someone else pain, then you've done something immoral.
And that may well be correct in your opinion. I'll even grant that it is true in most peoples opinions, at least abstractly. Even if there's rules, they're rules based on subjective values that sensible, healthy people throughout history and the world have not shared, or at least had sufficiently loose exceptions to demonstrate that it isn't a universal reality everyone can reasonably be expected to discover but specific value-based judgment. That makes it only subjectively true though, not objectively. Which distinction is what OP can't wrap his head around.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:13:02 2020 No.15767107 >>15766744 Doing something that you wouldn't like being done to you with no gain is by defnition inmoral. You literally cannot establish a moral code, by definition, where that is acceptable ''Just your opinion bro'' does not apply here.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 19:40:25 2020 No.15768014

>>15767107
>Doing something that you wouldn't like being done to you with no gain is by defnition inmoral.
YOUR definition, idiot. There are many other definitions that are perfectly reasonable in their own context. It genuinely is just your opinion, bro. Whether or not that definition is "objectively true" is what IS UNDER ARGUMENT here. Jesus, this board sucks. You fucks can't think critically about your own beliefs for a fucking second.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 21:28:26 2020 No.15768823

>>15763750
>>15764805
Have you guys considered that morality is objectively relative, as in proceeding from objective differences between populations?

>>15763922
That's a rather silly assertion. The notion that morality is fundamentally a set of evolved social strategies makes a great deal of sense — far more than any other explanation. These strategies exist to help us thrive (collectively) in the empirical world, and so must at some level be informed by the empirical. Moral realism is indicated. Perhaps you're too much of an individualist at heart to see the big picture.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 21:36:47 2020 No.15768871 >>15766658 >What then is Deontology or Consequentialism Old relics that are used for mental masturbation in 101 classes

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 21:38:51 2020 No.15768888 >>15768871 great argument. commendable effort.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 21:52:01 2020 No.15768966

>>15768823
>Have you guys considered that morality is objectively relative, as in proceeding from objective differences between populations?
that's just moral relativism on a cultural bases.
a population of cannibals is still objectively evil in all realities

i'm more interested in the commonalities of good & evil that these populations eventually agree upon; that points to objective ethical truths.
these conclusions aren't relative or arbitrary.

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 22:19:03 2020 No.15769112

>>15768966
>a population of cannibals is still objectively evil in all realities
Why?

So you just assert assumptions that we should take for granted instead of thinking about them, and you're only interested in commonalities as perceived through those assumptions. Great.

Relative morality isn't arbitrary. The commonalities are there because of overlap (not universality) in our natures, just as divergence in those natures causes moral differences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 02:15:30 2020 No.15770480 >>15768014 Ah ok you literally dont know what moral means, should have said so from the beginning and save us a lot of time

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 02:40:12 2020 No.15770590 >>15764313 >nutrition is irrelevant to ethics saving this in my dumbest posts of 2020 folder, for year-end review.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 02:44:58 2020 No.15770614 >>15763750 It is an objective fact that people disagree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 04:57:03 2020 No.15771116 >>15766658 >What then is Deontology or Consequentialism "isms" that all philosophers have moved on from. This is why virtue ethics, applied ethics, and cognitive science are literally all that's being studied other than in history of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 04:59:21 2020 No.15771126 >>15764969 Based frog

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:00:36 2020 No.15771133

>>15768823
>Have you guys considered that morality is objectively relative, as in proceeding from objective differences between populations?
Have you considered that you actually have no idea what these populations actually think and you're inferring what their morals are like based on what they do? It's like saying that Americans think it's moral to eat yourself into diabetes, since there are so many obese people. If women in the middle east were able to actually articulate, from the full facts and after being de-brainwashed, their views on 'oppression', they would not be what you think they are. This is not speculation, it actually happens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:02:29 2020 No.15771141 >>15770614 >>15769112 >>15768014 >People disagree about whether the earth is round or flat. >Therefore there are no objective facts in science. Babby's first Pyrrhonic skepticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:03:31 2020 No.15771146 >>15770590 Because you have no rational response and you were emotionally bothered by the argument. Low IQ man.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:08:25 2020 No.15771164

>>15771141
shape of the earth can be empirically measured. the earth is literally 'an object' so of course when it comes to the characteristics of an object we can 'speak objectively'.

morality is 'a concept' that only exists within the minds of 'subjects' so our conceptions and experiences relating to morality are inherently 'subjective'

its not hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:09:46 2020 No.15771170 File: 641 KB, 550x391, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15763809 >>15763806 definitely NOT comparable to torture! its just killing bro its diffrent . . . .

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:10:52 2020 No.15771177 >>15771170 But most people are unaware that that is happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:11:56 2020 No.15771178 >>15771164 >shape of the earth can be empirically measured Could be a conspiracy of evil scientists lying to you. You could be in a simulation. There is no evidence that the earth even exist. Yeah that's what it's like arguing with a relativist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:14:32 2020 No.15771190 >>15763786 still looks like he has the moustache in the thumbnail

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:19:55 2020 No.15771209 >>15771170 It'd probably be nearly universally deontologically and consequentially (and virtuistically) worse to torture for its own sake rather than for food.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:24:27 2020 No.15771227

>>15771178
>Could be a conspiracy of evil scientists lying to you
anyone can observe much of the considerable evidence for themselves, in many cases they do not need to rely on that evidence being provided by scientists

>You could be in a simulation
completely irrelevant, the earth is still round within the simulation. how would it change anything?

>There is no evidence that the earth even exist
it is inter subjectively verifiable between literally everyone with the required sensory organs. if you refuse to call this level of consensus 'evidence' then it appears that whatever worldview you are operating under doesn't make room for the concept of evidence to begin with (so why are you using the word or joining this conversation)

its not the same as moral relativism at all because moral relativism actually makes sense whereas 'relativism' about the shape of the earth (which isnt a real thing) requires you to state a position that is illogical or nonsensical

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:29:34 2020 No.15771238 File: 115 KB, 300x168, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15771209 are they tortured for food or for monetary gain? isn't it possible to kill animals for food without torturing them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 06:20:23 2020 No.15771409 >>15763725 Spaniards taught them the practice

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 06:32:14 2020 No.15771446

>>15771227
>it is inter subjectively verifiable between literally everyone with the required sensory organs. if you refuse to call this level of consensus 'evidence' then it appears that whatever worldview you are operating under doesn't make room for the concept of evidence to begin with (so why are you using the word or joining this conversation)
You can literally say the same thing about morals. If you refuse to accept the basic definition of morality then whatever cognitive processes happen in your brain are not adequate to take part in a discussion about morality. It's like asking a dog if it thinks assisted suicide is permissible. An alien species might reject that the earth is round because they live in a 4 dimensional world, so this same objection applies to the empirical world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:31:57 2020 No.15771659 >>15771446 >You can literally say the same thing about morals. no you cant idiot. there is no empirical evidence for something being good or bad. what are the objective moral values that everyone can observe and confirm for themselves?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:36:46 2020 No.15771682 >>15771659 I'm gonna stop here because it's obvious you haven't read any philosophy. You're asking ethics 101 questions.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:39:05 2020 No.15771692

>>15771682
its obvious that you don't have an answer. you are the one who thinks that believing 'the earth is round' is equivalent to believing in 'objective morals' which is a completely laughable equivalency, and yet you are accusing me of not knowing what i'm talking about!

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:08:49 2020 No.15771817

>>15771692
I didn't say those two things are equivalent. I said that if you're sceptic about objective morals then I can be sceptic about empirical facts, like the earth being round, with the same confidence. Both are ideas held under basic assumptions (that we are not in dream, that we have basic cognitive faculties, that space and time exist), and once you accept such 'reasonable' assumptions, you can conclude that the Earth is round and that torture is wrong with the same degree of confidence.

But the problem is that you argue in bad faith, and call people idiots every other sentence like a child, when you've barely scratched the surface of philosophical discourse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:17:53 2020 No.15771862 >>15771817 we're still waiting for you to demonstrate how torture being wrong can be deduced from the facts that space and time exist and that we have basic cognitive faculties. surely you've solved the is-ought gap anon! we're all waiting to hear!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:19:52 2020 No.15771872 >>15771817 and yes I am calling you an idiot because you keep spouting out joe rogan tier stuff about 'living in a simulation' or 'living in a dream' as if that would change ANYTHING about how empiricism or moral relativity works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:23:07 2020 No.15771898 >>15771817 the only way in which objective morality can be self evident 'under basic assumptions' is if you make objective morality one of those basic assumptions (which is obviously circular logic)

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:38:04 2020 No.15772914

>>15763847
>The claim I am defending is that moral relativism, like skepticism, is a stepping stone that people need to learn to overcome as part of the process of learning philosophy. A considerable portion of studying philosophy is overcoming those impasses where your thinking process leads you to a conclusion that you are unwilling to accept (for good reasons) but unable to reject. Overcoming the impasse in practice means no longer finding the arguments persuasive.
Nicely put. There are many such "impasses" which people learning philosophy get stuck at, such as moral nihilism, the rejection of free will, antirealism, and relativism about truth across all domains.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:41:58 2020 No.15772936 if you think the behavior described is OK you deserve to swing from a relative tree

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:44:10 2020 No.15772950 >>15763746 So were the Americans much more recently

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:48:43 2020 No.15772984 Too many language games. My gut tells me torturing animals and/or eating their bodies is wrong and I don't have to justify it to anyone.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:50:54 2020 No.15773000

>>15763992
>source? i assume you are talking about "most philosophers today" not all time. probably a significant proportion, but i doubt "most".
There's a reasonable chance that the answer is actually "most", at least among contemporary philosophers. 73% are atheists and 56% are moral realists according to this survey: https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf

In any case there's going to be a great many philosophers who are moral realists despite being atheists. I don't think it's plausible that they're all making an obvious mistake.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 11:57:36 2020 No.15773055 >>15764772 >>15764779 >>15764786 >>15764798 >>15764847 >>15764940 Christ; anon is absolutely eviscerating morons in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:03:09 2020 No.15773095 >>15764983 >>15765031 >>15765674 >>15770590 Lord; it continues!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:05:34 2020 No.15773112 >>15763725 Provide evidence of objective morality then

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:07:02 2020 No.15773124 >>15773095 It's true though, nutrition is irrelevant to ethics.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:16:40 2020 No.15773193

>>15773124
That can't be right--at least if by "ethics" you have in mind the field that attempts to answer questions about what one ought do, or how one ought live. Nutrition impacts health, and facts about health are clearly relevant to what one ought do and how one ought live.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:30:05 2020 No.15773273 >>15773193 If your ethics doesn't incorporate an idea of moral health, then it's just a fitness regimen

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:31:52 2020 No.15773286 >>15773273 Is this intended as an objection to what I said?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:35:18 2020 No.15773313 >>15773286 Yes. If optimal physical health requires the consumption of flesh, the universe is immoral

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:41:29 2020 No.15773346

>>15773313
Not sure I understand. I was just making the modest point that the medical health of agents with moral worth, like humans, is a relevant consideration when deciding what one ought do or how one ought live. This, of course, is not to say that it is the *only* consideration that bears on what one ought do or how one ought live, but it is clearly a pretty weighty one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 12:46:14 2020 No.15773381 >>15773112 Read Plato.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:00:42 2020 No.15773474 >>15772984 okay but your 'gut instincts' might owe more to your environment than you think - the way you were taught to conceptualize things as a child, the assumptions that you have picked up from others around you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:05:39 2020 No.15773503 >>15773474 not really they still have an autonomy, if they were exhaustively integrated in all these conditions they wouldn't exist as the surplus that they are

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:07:15 2020 No.15773511 >>15773503 im not denying that you have something which you perceive as an individual gut instinct, im saying that the things that instinct responds to are probably the result of social conditioning

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:22:05 2020 No.15773607

>>15771133
Honestly, you sound rather 'brainwashed' yourself.

I'm talking about biology at a low level. Populations have average differences in things like predisposition to violence, intellectual capacity, sexual dimorphism, social trust and so on. Such differences will effect what moral 'formulas' are optimal for them. The fact that people can fail in their moral assessments or be indoctrinated against their interests does not contradict what I'm saying in any way. Indeed, the only way to judge what is in their moral interests is to admit that what is 'moral' is what is 'adaptive'; I'm simply saying that what is 'adaptive' (beyond basic survival) is not universalizable to divergent populations.

Put your delicate sensibilities aside for a moment and honestly consider whether the 'liberation' of women in the West is going to be adaptive for us in the long-term. I think it is more likely that we will be replaced by populations that encourage women to focus on their biological role (I don't think that has to involve dressing them like ninjas, but still). This is a case in which populations do overlap a great deal, since if your women aren't reproducing you're ngmi (although I still expect there would be differences in how much "oppression" is required to keep things sustainable).

>>15771141
You don't understand my comment. I'm saying that it's objective scientific fact that populations are biologically divergent, and so it is unreasonable to expect a particular moral formula to work optimally for all of them (something we can investigate empirically).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:22:57 2020 No.15773613 >>15763725 Kind of an interesting thread but this belongs on >>>/his/ not /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:25:40 2020 No.15773630 >>15763725 Why even bringing native Muricans into it when our culture has much stronger opinions about human rights but doesn't mind torturing animals for pleasure. Humans are masters of mental gymnastics.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:27:52 2020 No.15773651

>>15771177
Nobody is dumb enough to be unaware of it. Some complete idiots might be unaware of the more gruesome details but seeing how their more educated peers have zero issues with it, knowledge wouldn't change shit.

It's very easy to move from "holy shit, the poor animals suffering for my pleasure" to "so do we go to BK or McDonalds today?"

>>	jesus Sat Jul 4 13:28:28 2020 No.15773661 >>15763725 children larp parents. parents to blame.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:29:47 2020 No.15773671

>>15771164
>morality is 'a concept' that only exists within the minds of 'subjects'
It is a concept abstracted from concrete social strategies. An intellectual formalization of socio-behavioral regulation. The efficacy of a given moral pre/proscription in achieving adaptive outcomes is just as empirically measureable as the earth... If you believe in objective facts, then you must understand that 'subjective' is a subset of 'objective', meaning that the subjective is always informed by the objective, and indeed that the differences on which our subjective experiences are predicated are objective ones.

>>	jesus Sat Jul 4 13:31:28 2020 No.15773688 >>15763786 carlos castaneda apologized to rabbit before cutting his neck. and he killed only one rabbit, another was released.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:36:37 2020 No.15773723

>>15773671
what makes these social strategies 'concrete'? how do we ascertain which strategies best achieve adaptive outcomes without access to the entire spectrum of human possibility? harakiri is not a particularly optimal social practice but it persisted for a long period of time - what if our current practices are massively deficient and our societies have thrived primarily on luck and random outcomes that are beyond the pale of social strategies?

secondly, how can we say there are concrete social strategies which underlie morality when societies are aggregates of individuals? can we ascertain than all individuals experience the same concrete set of social strategies? can't there be people born who are never exposed to a certain social taboo, who never internalize it? are they somehow 'morally deficient'? by what standard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:37:37 2020 No.15773730 >>15771238 Monetary gain. I wonder why we don't use suffocation with gases that don't provoke agonal breathing (so they basically just go to 'sleep'), and the only apparent answer is that it would be too expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:40:19 2020 No.15773755 >>15771872 man the irony of this post... you really dont get it.. what he's saying is that the joe rogan 'we living in a simulation' argument is literally what you're doing when you say that morality can't be proved. jesus fucking dumbass

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:46:04 2020 No.15773804

>>15773755
In a situation where we are debating 'is the earth round' it makes literally no difference whether the earth we are debating about is simulated or dreamt or whatever. There is no applicable 'living in a simulation' argument to the question 'is the earth round'; if we are living in a simulation then the round earth that we live on would also be simulated but it would have no effect on whether or not it is round.

I completely understand WHY he is trying to use that line of argument but he is arguing a false equivalency. He is saying that arguing for relative morals is equivalent to saying that empiricism is irrelevant because 'it might be a simulation', which doesn't actually make any sense. It does make sense on the other hand, to say that morals are relative. Arguing that morals are relative does not require you to argue that the content of your experience does not exist or anything of the sort.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 13:49:37 2020 No.15773827 >>15772914 Hilarious. You guys think that the conclusions you don't like are the impasses, as opposed to your own inability to process those conclusions in a healthy way. Also, lumping in >rejection of free will with >antirealism comedic gold

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:05:35 2020 No.15773968

>>15773723
>what makes these social strategies 'concrete'
They are not just concepts, they are evolved behaviours.
>how do we ascertain which strategies best achieve adaptive outcomes without access to the entire spectrum of human possibility?
We apply heuristic analyses & solutions to do the best we can, given that 'perfect' calculation and implementation are not possible.
>what if our current practices are massively deficient and our societies have thrived primarily on luck and random outcomes that are beyond the pale of social strategies?
Eventually the most effective social strategies win out, unless 'luck' only favours the maladaptive, in which case it wouldn't be random.
>when societies are aggregates of individuals?
This is an absurd unilateral characterization. Individuals are just as much the product of collectives as vice versa.
>are they somehow 'morally deficient'? by what standard?
By the pragmatic standard of what is collectively adaptive (which is the purpose of morality).

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:17:37 2020 No.15774086

>>15773968
>Individuals are just as much the product of collectives as vice versa.
I think you misunderstood me here. I am saying that *at any given time* a society is an aggregate of all of its individual members. I agree that each individual is constructed by the collective, by the past generations, but each individual is also unique and has their own unique morality. If we were able to draw a circle that contained everyone's morality we would definitely find a 'cluster' but does this mean we can extract a concrete 'absolute morality'? at best we can say individual moralities tend to exist within a certain range of characteristics.

>Eventually the most effective social strategies win out, unless 'luck' only favours the maladaptive
lets presume there are millions of other planets in our physical universe with social animals (which i dont think is a wild proposition), and lets just say for the sake of argument that there are three different somewhat 'optimal' ways of organizing societies. which one constitutes the objective morality? or is it split between all three? either way, out of these millions of planets there will be a number of planets that never actually come anywhere near to these optimal organizations. they might strike upon a strategy that, in conjunction with some highly specific unpredictable circumstances, allows their society to flourish somewhat, but still be miles away from any of these optimal configurations. so how can we, with access to only one life-bearing planet, say anything about objective morality?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:19:06 2020 No.15774102 >>15763725 What is the title

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:24:38 2020 No.15774163

>>15774086
>>15773968
to expand on this second point, and since the argument is somewhat Darwinian, just consider the possibility that all of our social structures are headed towards extinction (which it seems might actually be the case).

>By the pragmatic standard of what is collectively adaptive
and yet the thing that is being adapted to (the planet, wider/global social contexts, planetary movements, immediate environment, e.t.c.) is not concrete, so how do we find any 'absolute moral' between two interweaving processes of constant change? the things that allowed tribal societies to grow in an environment where only tribal societies existed were useful in that context. for the handful of tribes that exist nowadays, how is making some basic spears and such helpful when the rest of the world has guns and cars?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:26:33 2020 No.15774181 >>15773827 >You guys think that the conclusions adored by undergrads taking Philosophy 101 but rejected by most actual philosophers are the impasses Fixed it for you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:27:56 2020 No.15774195 >>15773827 >lumping in rejection of free will with antirealism >comedic gold very cool man tell us more

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:28:48 2020 No.15774206 >>15774181 lets imagine you were a 999IQ supergenius who was pretty sure about moral nihilism and a lack of free will. what would you do with this belief? would you become a 'philosopher'? lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:35:29 2020 No.15774248 File: 48 KB, 500x500, D024_YaWsAAtmnR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15774206 >gives definition of a reddit philosopher

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:43:36 2020 No.15774299

>>15774086
>unique morality
Yes, this is true in the sense that everyone has their unique strategic approach to living, but -morality- is about the collective — the consequences of behaviours in the context of a society that they will impact (the notion of 'individual morality' is nonsensical, as the context is absent). I am not arguing for an 'absolute morality', I am a moral relativist... I am arguing that morality works via overlap in our natures (what is adaptive for us), but that divergent populations will have somewhat different adaptive conditions.

>which one constitutes the objective morality?
I don't think you're cognizing the difference between 'objective and 'universal'. I am arguing for the former, not the latter. The fact that that morality is not universal does not mean that it is non-objective. Morality is objectively non-universal.

>but still be miles away from any of these optimal configurations
The point is to strive in that direction, and to do so does not require the possiblity of fully realizing an optimal configuration (indeed, what is optimal is always changing). Your objection here reeks a bit of radical skepticism... It's like saying "Our knowledge will always be incomplete, so how can we make any claim to knowledge at all?" Degrees matter, and are actionable.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:50:31 2020 No.15774346

>>15774163
>is not concrete
'Concrete' in philosophical terms does not mean 'static', it is used to describe the opposite end of the spectrum from 'abstract'.

>how is making some basic spears and such helpful when the rest of the world has guns and cars?
I would assume it helps them obtain food? Not sure what you're asking here. Competition is real, there are no gaurantees.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 14:56:03 2020 No.15774382

>>15774181
>most
Key word. We might also consider that some of those philosophers might have ulterior motives for publicly rejecting certain notions, and that philosophers of years past were working with more limited information.

Main thing though is that you're making an argument from authority, which is anti-philosophical. You're a pseud.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:07:19 2020 No.15774434 A reminder that "torturing animals is bad" is a consistent claim only if you are also a vegan. If you also eat something you kill, it does not make its killing any better.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:16:39 2020 No.15774501

>>15774382
It's easy enough to state the relevant arguments, though time consuming. Easier in this context is just to cite the expert consensus, especially when responding to someone who has done nothing more than label your claims "hilarious". If anyone's claims here can legitimately be dismissed as hilarious without argument, I'm pretty sure it's not the claims that are aligned with the expert consensus. So my "argument from authority" did what it was intended to do.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:23:02 2020 No.15774547 [DELETED]

File: 131 KB, 500x500, 1577775183986.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation; no ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity, tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly

- David Hume, 1742

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:52:43 2020 No.15774750 >>15774434 Torture and killing are two different concepts, you dumb soitard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:53:54 2020 No.15774756 >>15773381 That's not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 15:55:34 2020 No.15774766 >>15774750 No shit, genius! Now, once again: >A reminder that "torturing animals is bad" is a consistent claim only if you are also a vegan. If you also eat something you kill, it does not make its killing any better.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:20:05 2020 No.15774939

>>15774501
Even the post initially being responded to >>15772914 admits that these so-called impasses are ones he is "unable to reject", but is "unwilling to accept". The sensible philsophical response here would be to acknowledge the possiblity of a conflict between pragmatic belief and ontological truth, not to bury your head in the sand.

The point here is that you've established no criteria for why certain conclusions are 'impasses' other than a) you don't find them palatable and b) they run contrary to expert 'consensus' (in which case they really shouldn't be so impassable in terms of argumentation).

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:46:34 2020 No.15775160

>>15774939
They're impasses in the sense that they represent hurdles that are hard to clear for the budding philosopher. They are views supported by prima facie compelling--but ultimately flawed--arguments (hence their attraction for the philosophical initiate) that some people never move beyond. That's all.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:54:20 2020 No.15775215

>>15774766
>A reminder that "torturing animals is bad" is a consistent claim only if you are also a vegan.

It's consistent with veganism/vegetarianism, yes, but it's not "only" in those cases. Even Buddhists can eat meat if it's given to them.

>If you also eat something you kill, it does not make its killing any better.

Irrelevant. Nothing to do with torture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:55:44 2020 No.15775222 >>15763725 >But it seems to me that the obvious answer is that it is immoral to torture animals regardless of culture How do brainlets like this hatch?

>>	jesus Sat Jul 4 17:02:15 2020 No.15775262 1. it is immoral to eat meat. 2. it is immoral to purchase and use goods and services produced by meat eaters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:16:29 2020 No.15775362 >>15774750 Unless you're a hunterfag or have your own farm where you pay attention to good treatment of animals instead of economics, you torture the fuck out of them before killing them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:17:31 2020 No.15775375 >>15775262 >2. it is immoral to purchase and use goods and services produced by meat eaters. Y tho? If Adolf found a cure to some disease, would it be really immoral to use it?

>>	jesus Sat Jul 4 17:19:23 2020 No.15775393 >>15775375 you sponsor immoral activity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:21:09 2020 No.15775412 >>15775393 Not really. People aren't absolutes. Horrible ones can do great things and great people can fuck up. As long you don't sponsor the shitty behaviour specifically, there isn't anything wrong with it.

>>	jesus Sat Jul 4 17:23:44 2020 No.15775432 >>15775412 nope. you depend on killing animals for food, you just outsourced responsibility.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:30:04 2020 No.15775487

>>15775432
But I don't. The people who eat them don't either.

Looking for another store because the cashier in your local one enjoys to torture animals doesn't sound too effective to prevent her from doing it either way and doesn't reward her torture but her job as a cashier.

When vegans get bigger numbers, then sure, it would be beneficial to exclude non vegans from as many fields as possible.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 17:45:36 2020 No.15775580

>>15764799
Not the above poster but higher IQ is obviously related to empathy as empathy is related to large group co-operation which is related to the advancement of civilization in general.
This doesn't mean high IQ people are passive, rather they have a higher awareness of the consequences of their actions and ergo are against cruelty in most forms if unnecessary. Moral relativism is a cope for ignorance.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 18:06:39 2020 No.15775697

>>15775215
If animals are morally comparable to humans (or at least have a fraction of that importance), then torturing/killing/harming them is bad by exactly the same reason you don't do it to humans. Killing a human for some benefit is no better than killing him just because. And if animals are just nature events without moral value, then doing whatever you want with them is OK.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 18:14:43 2020 No.15775737 >>15775160 This is just pure rhetoric. You're still arguing from authority, and you haven't established by what criteria you've grouped >moral nihilism, the rejection of free will, antirealism, and relativism about truth into this category.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 19:05:14 2020 No.15776070

>>15775697
We (usually) don't kill humans because:
1.We are human, so allowing a rule in which human killing is condoned is very likely to result in us being killed.
2.Our empathy is strongest for those in our in-group, so killing humans is likely to make us feel bad.
3. Humans in our out-group that we do not empathise with are likely to retaliate if we try and kill them, or other in their group will avenge if we do kill them, and other humans are particularly dangerous.
4.We don't eat other humans, and any direct products that would be gained from killing them can mostly be gained by killing other species that don't qualify for 1-3 , so the risks outweigh the potential benefit in most situations.

'Moral worth' is just an abstract concept humans use to justify/explain the rules when they are ignorant of the actual pragmatic reasons for the rules that catch on. It's easier to get other people to follow rules if you describe them as 'universal' without exception, and 'virtuous', while also shaming and punishing infractions. It's just rhetoric that has proven to be effective.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 19:28:12 2020 No.15776210
File: 70 KB, 487x281, Capture3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15763725
>>15764368
>>15764954
>>15773630
>>15764799
>>15764585
>>15764969
By "Native American" you mean this one tribe in particular tortured birds. I'm sure the majority of other tribes did not practice this kind of animal cruelty.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 20:05:55 2020 No.15776487
File: 280 KB, 900x1209, 47D6C0AE-17DE-4ADD-9ECE-D02DEF82EDD6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15764969
Cultural anthropology is the most unfulfilling religion. It’s the real red pill and you cannot unswallow it. My values have no existence on their own and all aspirations are ultimately self-serving. Criticism of any actions or beliefs in any cultures are in the end ironic and we simply agree on moral principles to suit our own comfort. Which is why I believe the ultimate question in all of history is whether Jesus ascended from the grave. The answer determines if there is a moral obligation and if there is a law above the law.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 20:12:15 2020 No.15776534 There's nothing noble about the noble savages. They are only savages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 20:21:50 2020 No.15776609 >>15763725 >Children are naturally immoral Then there are no objective values.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:25:15 2020 No.15778633 >>15774299 Absolutely based.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:29:02 2020 No.15778645 >>15776210 And, based.

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:30:34 2020 No.15778652

>>15763725
I remember when I and my friend were kids and we captured frogs and played with them. Then my mom told us "the frogs have family too and can suffer too, dont you feel bad for them?" and we immediately went to return them. Kids dont understand things that may be obvious to adults unless you tell them

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:36:16 2020 No.15778674 >>15763725 I shoot birds for sport. Go become a janist so you can lament stepping on a bug for all I care

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 03:41:47 2020 No.15778864 >>15764969 It's amazing how no amount of philosophizing will ever outmatch a good sense of race.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 03:46:13 2020 No.15778873 >>15776210 Where is this screenshot from?

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 04:42:14 2020 No.15779038

>>15775737
What they have in common is that all are repudiations of common sense. This is why they attract edgy undergrads who think being a profound philosopher requires rejecting obvious truths.

Philosophical maturity, by contrast, consists in part of an appreciation of the deep wisdom of commonsense beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 07:37:17 2020 No.15779626 >>15778652 This begs the question. Why did Western adults come to teach those values to their children? >>15778674 >I shoot birds for sport. And most Westerners think you're immoral.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:12:24 2020 No.15779794 What's it called when you don't think there are any absolute right morals but that your own morals are still correct and degenerates should be killed?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:16:21 2020 No.15779815 >>15763786 Moralists on suicide watch

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:23:18 2020 No.15779853 >>15779794 Brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:04:44 2020 No.15780638 >>15764160 even if that is true, meat should still be sacred. but almost none of us are obliged to respect their sacrifice

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:10:16 2020 No.15780683

>>15780638
Well, that's non of my business. I killed my own game and chickens and respect their sacrifice. Never even making fun of their cadavers and making sure that they got used up as far as possible, never wasting any meat or bones. Keeping in mind that we too will be fooder for other creatures brings it back into relation. No need to make it "sacred".

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:12:28 2020 No.15780695 >>15780683 do you eat it fully? do cook it carefully so as to not waste it essences? these are the ways that we respect their sacrifices, so that they are not in vain you don't have to bow before you eat or whatever

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 11:18:20 2020 No.15780737

>>15780695
Sure, I eat the meat, cook the bones for brooth or grill them halved for the marrow. There are cool recipes in every naive culture for using whole aimals, even the head. Although it's an aquiered taste for sure. I use the skin or sell it. The only reason I would kill an animal without consuming it is in actual self-defence or out of mercy, but even than, nature takes what I haven't, so it's never in vain.

Which is in stark contrast to factory farmed animals which can be preventably slaughtered and burned when some cage-related disease exploads. But than again, the elites want masses so a traditional living is unsustainable for those.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 12:18:00 2020 No.15781129 >>15779038 Empty assertion. I would argue that philosophical maturity involves being able to go where logic leads, even when at odds with one's conceits/intuitions (or else, what incisive power would philosophy wield in general?).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 12:23:32 2020 No.15781164 >>15779626 >And most Westerners think you're immoral. Most westerners aren't vegan soibois

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 14:51:36 2020 No.15782141 >>15781129 Nothing I said is in tension with what you just said.

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 15:38:18 2020 No.15782461

>>15781129
>philosophical maturity involves being able to go where logic leads, even when at odds with one's conceits/intuitions
Maturity is also realising that throwing 100 million years of evolution out the window because your syllogism told you x is okay isn't wise, especially if you're under 40.

>>15781164
Exactly. You just proved my point, but I doubt you realise, being a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 15:42:49 2020 No.15782508 Only pedophiles and child murderers firmly believe in moral relativism.

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 15:58:04 2020 No.15782625

>>15782141
Of course it is. If the application of logic (which is what philosophy is) often reveals truths that run counter to common intuition, then "common sense" can't be a standard by which to judge the accuracy of a line of reasoning or to determine "obvious truths" (any more than perceiving 'edginess' would be).

Here's an obvious truth: You're a pseud.

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:12:41 2020 No.15782752

>>15782461
Again, the 'mature' philosphical response here is to recognize a potential conflict between pragmatic belief and ontological truth, not to selectively bail on logic when the answers bother you. If you have trouble processing such conflicts in a healthy way, then may I submit that philosophy isn't the endeavour for you. Carry on with your other interests, and stop polluting philosophical discussions with your empty rhetoric.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:29:20 2020 No.15782879 >>15782752 >empty rhetoric Your entire post is literally a tautology lmao

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:46:38 2020 No.15783009

>>15763725
The "problem of moral relativism" has been around since people started thinking. A number of the Ancient Greek sophists taught some form or another of moral relativism. The only argument against moral relativism is that we can observe for ourselves that we have some inner sense of justice or right and wrong. You'd hate yourself if you hurt someone you really loved. You know that would be wrong. The basis of Socratic philosophy is investigation of these naive moral feelings to determine whether there is some standard of justice or right and wrong that is accessible to reason. The Socratic answer is the only answer that isn't nihilism. Read the Republic.

>>	jesus Sun Jul 5 16:52:12 2020 No.15783050 >>15782508 you forgot nazi, racists and white cis males.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:58:35 2020 No.15783108 >>15771170 You write like a currynigger. Are you one?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:19:34 2020 No.15784171 >>15763725 Friendly reminder animals and nature need white brothers

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:38:57 2020 No.15784313 I forgive the pain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 19:45:44 2020 No.15784354 >>15783009 Word

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 21:41:11 2020 No.15785206 >>15782879 Demonstrate how lmao Oh you can't because you're a fucking idiot.

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 21:58:08 2020 No.15785314

>>15783009
Or — y'know — we just acknowledge that those naive moral feelings have evolved in us, and so if they tend to be common to the human experience (not just a result of rare mutations), then they're obviously there because they're supposed to confer some adaptive advantage.

Reason doesn't precede the reasoner. Reason is a toolset we apply in service to our preferences. There is a standard we can evaluate, but it does not precede our natures and is not truly universal. An evopsych understanding of morality does not lead to moral nihilism; to the contrary, it sets the foundation for a very tangible moral realism.

The Republic is good reading (especially in terms of politics), but the truth of morality is not so esoteric.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 22:28:53 2020 No.15785478 >>15785314 OK nihilist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 22:43:34 2020 No.15785575 File: 168 KB, 768x752, 1593787351861.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15785478

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 22:50:29 2020 No.15785634 >>15785478 >nihilist Yes, I'm an existential nihilist, but not a moral nihilist. See if you can figure out the difference, sweaty.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:12:24 2020 No.15787310

>>15782625
That's exactly my point: good philosophical reasoning doesn't "often reveal truths that run counter to common intuition". Sometimes it does, but for the most part the edgy arguments against common sense that redditors taking their first philosophy course find so attractive turn out to be flawed on closer inspection. This is no coincidence: there is deep wisdom in common sense. The mature philosopher realises this and is not so quick to dismiss intuition on the basis of what at first blush appears to be a strong argument.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:44:33 2020 No.15787438

>>15783050
>white cis males
Interesting observations... I would have said most relativists are liberal White westerners, both men and women, usually educated and sheltered. I don't know any working class or high school drop out who think there are no objective morals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 03:45:35 2020 No.15787442 >>15787310 >for the most part the edgy arguments against common sense that redditors taking their first philosophy course find so attractive turn out to be flawed on closer inspection sums it up really

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:03:22 2020 No.15787684

>>15787310
>Sometimes it does
Which demonstrates that 'common sense' is not a functional standard upon which to dismiss a line of inquiry. Good philosophical reasoning is the rigorous application of logic, and it goes where it goes (which is quite often contrary to intuition).

Perhaps you could suspend the use of your meme vocabulary long enough to explain what constitutes the standard of 'deep wisdom', and how we may distinguish it from the illusions of common sense.

Also, since you've been at this awhile, it might be helpful just to argue the logic of one of the notions you dislike to see how obviously true your position is. I'd be curious to see your mature philosophical argument in support of free will, for example.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:10:20 2020 No.15787705

>>15763725
>non whites torture animals
>but they regard them closer to the human species than does the average white man

Haha nice mental gymnastics. White devil is bad because muh racism but non whites good because moral standards don't apply to them and they can do whatever they want: kill, torture others, other non whites, whites, animals. But they are good boys they dindu nuthin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:29:24 2020 No.15787777 >>15787705 Calm down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:46:15 2020 No.15787833 File: 6 KB, 235x215, chadgrug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15764772 >>15764779 >>15764786 >>15764798 Based and Grug pilled.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 05:57:49 2020 No.15787865 >milk is good watch this you estrogen chuggers: https://youtu.be/lKngv7mL48s

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 06:00:20 2020 No.15787872 >>15787865 also, here's the 'milk warriors' aka ancient scythian tribes who got most of their calories from dairy products: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22332473/ >WE WUZ THE REAL TRANNIES lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 06:45:50 2020 No.15788055 >>15787777 Get a dog up ya cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 07:01:43 2020 No.15788124 >>15778864 >sense of race What??

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 07:11:50 2020 No.15788167

>>15787684
>Which demonstrates that 'common sense' is not a functional standard upon which to dismiss a line of inquiry.
I never said otherwise. But still, the fact that the evidence against a proposition is not *absolutely decisive* doesn't mean that we can't rightly dismiss the proposition on the basis of that evidence. It's logically consistent with our evidence that the Earth is flat, but we can still dismiss the flat-Earth hypothesis on the basis of our evidence. Similarly, it is often the case that our common sense beliefs are in such good standing that we can antecedently be highly confident that any philosophical argument against those beliefs is flawed in some way, and rightly so.

>Also, since you've been at this awhile, it might be helpful just to argue the logic of one of the notions you dislike to see how obviously true your position is. I'd be curious to see your mature philosophical argument in support of free will, for example.
That we have free will is not obvious because of any argument. Common sense beliefs don’t usually have the status they do because we have been convinced of them by some explicit argument. While there are a number of ways beliefs might come to be regarded as commonsensical, the belief that we have free will probably has its status because of the way the freedom of our choices is immediately manifest to us. When making an ordinary decision we clearly perceive that it is open to us to genuinely choose between our options.

Here's a quick argument for/account of free will. It’s very schematic and rough: much needs clarifying and details need filling, but I think it stands a good chance of being correct in outline.

Free will is the ability to do otherwise, in a certain sense. We are able to do something when it is compatible with the relevant facts that we do that thing. In the case of free will, the relevant facts are, to a first approximation, coarse grained facts about the local environment outside our brain at the time of our action. In paradigm cases of free action, it is compatible with this local environment, coarsely construed, that we act differently. So we have the ability to do otherwise, in the relevant sense, and hence have free will.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 07:51:41 2020 No.15788292 >>15763767 >Mackie >Relativism Anon....

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 08:06:58 2020 No.15788354

>>15788167
>Similarly, it is often the case that our common sense beliefs are in such good standing
There is no analogy there. Rather, your preceding statement torpedoes this one.
Belief regarding geometry of the Earth is a prime example of how common intuition — which was in excellent standing for the majority of our history — turned out to be entirely misleading, our confidence misplaced.

>That we have free will is not obvious because of any argument.
Of course not. It's obvious in the way that it's obvious the Earth is flat.

>we have the ability to do otherwise
This just falls into myriad regressions. Did we have the ability to consider our 'choice' differently? If we're not aware of how are thoughts arise, how can we claim that some 'meta-self' controls them (and the same questions would apply to the ostensible meta-self).

Assuming the future is undetermined, by what logic is it sensible to suppose that we are in control over the processes which underlie variability of outcomes, rather than being a product of them?

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 08:36:52 2020 No.15788467

>>15788354
>Smart Anon: concedes common sense is sometimes wrong, safe in the knowledge that this does literally no harm to his position.
>Fetal Alcohol Anon: gives an example of common sense being wrong and acts like this is a knockdown argument against anything Smart Anon said.

Cool brain you got there, anon.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 08:43:46 2020 No.15788504

>>15788354
>Assuming the future is undetermined, by what logic is it sensible to suppose that we are in control over the processes which underlie variability of outcomes, rather than being a product of them?
I'm happy to assume the universe is deterministic. I think it will simplify the discussion.

>This just falls into myriad regressions. Did we have the ability to consider our 'choice' differently? If we're not aware of how are thoughts arise, how can we claim that some 'meta-self' controls them (and the same questions would apply to the ostensible meta-self).
Are you denying that we act freely just when we could have done otherwise? I can't tell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 12:06:02 2020 No.15789652 bump

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 12:09:47 2020 No.15789674

>>15763750
That isn't relativism. Relativism states that because individuals are bound to their perspective (i.e., because they are not the universe) there is an objective reality unique to each individual (i.e. there is no universal reality to speak of).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:31:05 2020 No.15790311 >>15788467 >Cool brain you got there, anon. Smooth as a baby's bum

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 13:44:05 2020 No.15790404 >>15789674 That's like saying that if a moron believes the earth is flat then it must be so from his perspective. The whole argument is circular. Some people are actually wrong about ethics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:28:53 2020 No.15791645 bump

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:34:49 2020 No.15791681

>>15788467
Not an argument.

>>15788504
I would say that 'freedom' is a relative concept which does not describe any actual state... Even Kant observes this:
>So freedom is only an idea of reason, whose objective reality in itself is doubtful...
-Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals - Chapter 3

There is no 'otherwise' so far as we can tell, and even if there is, we have no particularly good reason to assume that we have any control over the process by which it unfolds (the evidence would rather suggest that our thoughts/deliberations themselves are a product of that process). So are you arguing for a true 'free will' or just some kind of pragmatic facsimile (in which case we must again question the ontological 'wisdom' of our 'common sense' in this example).

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:46:40 2020 No.15791769

>>15790404
Not that anon, and yeah he cocked it up. Allow me to rectify...
There is an objective reality (for all) and each agent is objectively different in that reality (this is the source of their subjective perspective). The reason morals can't be truly universalized (although they are objective), is because of those objective differences between agents (i.e. our natures aren't universal). Morality works via overlap in natures — not universality — and the average differences between divergent populations can be great enough that their moral formulas are in genuine competition.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:54:15 2020 No.15791836

>>15763725
I was reading about early European contact with the great lakes region of Africa (Uganda area). They had a tradition of killing random people to try and counteract "evil". When a trader was trying to sell a chief repeating rifles he wanted a test demonstration. The chief first had a cow and dog shot. Then his indunas (council) said that wasnt enough so they gave the rifle to a kid and told him to go out into the village and shoot a few random people. This shocked the traders but noone else seemed to care.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:54:34 2020 No.15791841 >>15791681 >Not an argument. Yeah, just a recapitulation of something dumb you said. Revealing your stupidity serves well enough to refute it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 16:55:44 2020 No.15791853 >>15791681 >Not an argument. Molymeme attempting to rebuild his cult on /lit/ after being banished from youtube

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 17:02:40 2020 No.15791900 >>15763725 Kids still torture animals when they play with them today.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 17:43:09 2020 No.15792164

>>15791681
The ability to do otherwise consists in the compatibility of your doing otherwise with a certain body of facts. This just falls out of our best theories of modal verbs like "can" and "could" which we use to express claims about abilities, as in "I could have done otherwise". Our ordinary ascriptions of such abilities seem to implicitly invoke a body of fact like the one I described earlier.

I can't tell which part of this you're disagreeing with.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 17:57:52 2020 No.15792242

>>15773346

My neighbors are so noisy that I have been wearing earplugs at night for years which has resulted in chronic inflammation of my right ear canal. Should I supersede my initial Moral decision of not killing them because I have incurred bodily harm?

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 18:42:38 2020 No.15792543

>>15792164
So you're arguing for ontological free will on the basis of uncritically accepting implicit assumptions in our language? I do not assume that "could" or "can" demonstrate the existence of a state of freedom or the existence of a will. Neutrally (non-assumptively) speaking, they simply indicate unrealized possibilities, not some kind of meta-capacity to control what is realized. Any such implication in those terms are a result of our psychological conceits (common sense?), not any critical & logical self-reflection.

I think you're being intentionally evasive at this point.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature