Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 07, 2015, 10:28:14 AM

Wait, what?

What am I missing?

The question from your quiz.. that you never answered for us

Yes, Lenin did have the biggest impact.

I'm making two AMAs, an economics and a philosophy edition.

Hopefully a number of questions will engender a broad and interesting discussions about various aspects of both of those fields. And, if you consider me a reliable authority (you really should by now), I might be able to help you understand a certain process or concept.

It wasn't "the" picture. It's a satirical news paper, they've done dozens of cartoons.

I think he means that was the picture of Muhammed mentioned in the news story.

Well, seeing as you've reserved a place for me it only seems proper I pledge my efforts.

But eventually you'll find a decision that is better for society but morally repulsive.

You're assuming our moral intuitions are correct.

*vigorously fucks Icy in the bum until he dies*

I bet Mr. P is tricking us and he's going to keep making threads for as long as we fall for it.

I'm currently drinking whiskey so if I drunkenly grope somebody I expect first a blowjob and then an apology for you being a dirty, dirty slut.

Fuck yes.

drink some hot milk, turn all the electric off in your room and have a wank.

. . .

I don't like milk.

Sure.

It's a date then.

But they also provide jobs for people, which are necessary for any modern society to live.

Not true. Consumption is the key focus of any economy; not income.

Companies only have an obligation to provide jobs insofar as it improves the capacity for consumption with an economy.

They exist to provide goods consumers want for as cheap as can possibly be bought.

That's it.

That's the only social responsibility they have, and it's the only reason they've existed for this long. They shouldn't have to contribute to charity, and they shouldn't have to pay taxed.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 06, 2015, 05:25:17 PM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on January 06, 2015, 05:21:59 PM

And that is where moral objectivity breaks down; as I said, objective morality cannot exist on a small scale.

This is the confusion I'm talking about.

Don't confuse a shortcoming in human perception with a lack of facts. If moral facts exist, they necessarily exist at all scales of consideration.

I think this is a problem of communication. In my previous example, involving genocide, even on the more specific scale the objective view still applies, but only broadly. You can give a general response that is objective, absolutely, but the more specific a subject gets the more subjective it becomes as well.

I think I see what you're saying.

You're not necessarily negating the existence of facts at the moral "quantum" level; you're saying that as we get more and more specific and into more convoluted situation, it's more difficult to grasp the answer and thus moral discourse will be more susceptible to subjective influences?

but there's a difference between subjectivity in that sense

The problem a lot of people run into is thinking that because somebody quite emotively thinks something is moral (like, stoning women to death for adultery) then nobody is in fact correct--it's just a matter of emotion. And, of course, emotions factor into it--that's a consequence.

You can, however, say you can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective. Otherwise, fields of study like psychology or neuroscience wouldn't exist. The facts about consequence could differ from person to person, and thus there are very few absolutely moral RULES. There are, however, still facts.