the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
That's true, because the universe is deterministic and ultimately you have no real choice, but punishment of crimes is just an extension of the evolutionary mechanisms that result in beneficial traits.
You would be right if "natural" had any value whatsoever. What's natural or unnatural doesn't fucking matter - what causes suffering or doesn't does.
shut the fuck up
Quote from: Doctor Doom on June 05, 2017, 07:23:19 PMshut the fuck up
Quote from: Jono on June 05, 2017, 08:16:41 PMQuote from: Doctor Doom on June 05, 2017, 07:23:19 PMshut the fuck upNO I WILL NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP. I HAVE THINGS TO SAY, BIG THINGS. YOU WILL NOT KEEP ME DOWN WITH YOUR WORDS. THEY'VE TRIED BEFORE, AND THEY WILL TRY AGAIN, BUT I WILL STAND TALL IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY. YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW, YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW, YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW AND YOU'RE NOT SO BIG!
Quote from: Jono on June 05, 2017, 08:16:41 PMQuote from: Doctor Doom on June 05, 2017, 07:23:19 PMshut the fuck up
Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 07:39:36 PMYou would be right if "natural" had any value whatsoever. What's natural or unnatural doesn't fucking matter - what causes suffering or doesn't does."If nature had any value whatsoever." That just sounds so fucked up lol.
Nine times out of ten it is
Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:00:07 PMNine times out of ten it isWhat's the one out of ten
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PMQuote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Quote from: 化粧室はどこですか//~ on June 05, 2017, 09:05:37 PMQuote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:00:07 PMNine times out of ten it isWhat's the one out of tenWeed, mushrooms, poppies, and other mind altering forms of life.
Quote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:18:40 PMQuote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PMQuote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.Concepitalizing something =/= making it existSentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Wrong. Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. We draw all morality from the simple maxim that suffering is bad.
if youre not meming and want people to take your posts seriously you should consider posting them in seriouseven though that isnt a guarantee
Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:24:06 PMQuote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:18:40 PMQuote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PMQuote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.Concepitalizing something =/= making it existSentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.
Quote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PMQuote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Wrong. Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. We draw all morality from the simple maxim that suffering is bad.We know pain that we may recognize happiness.
Quote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:47:55 PMQuote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:24:06 PMQuote from: Aether on June 05, 2017, 09:18:40 PMQuote from: Annie on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PMQuote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 05, 2017, 09:07:10 PMThe real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.Concepitalizing something =/= making it existSentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.
Why there is no such thing as a bad person
