Because that's how subjectivity works. There's no point in debating objective facts.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on September 30, 2018, 02:03:37 PM

Because that's how subjectivity works. There's no point in debating objective facts.

yeah, because everyone agrees on what is objectively true in the world

Doesn't change what is actually objective.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on September 30, 2018, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 30, 2018, 02:13:07 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on September 30, 2018, 02:03:37 PM

Because that's how subjectivity works. There's no point in debating objective facts.

yeah, because everyone agrees on what is objectively true in the world

Doesn't change what is actually objective.

no fucking shit

that's why you argue about it, because it MATTERS when somebody is wrong about what is objectively true

subjective things don't really matter at all, so arguments involving any subjectivity are a complete waste of time

Arguing about whether or not grass is green is pointless, arguing about whether or not Trent Reznor is a visionary is worthwhile.

You can change opinions by arguing, grass is still green whether or not you agree with it.

there are some objective subjects that are far more complex than whether grass is green—politics, philosophy, science

there's a right answer to things like immigration, or climate change, or what economic system we should be using

nobody can know for certain what the answers are, but we all have our own ideas—some better than others—but only one of those ideas can be right, because if the wrong opinion overpowers the right opinion, people are going to die (or money is going to get wasted)

It's technically subjective, but regardless, humans all suffer for the same essential reasons, and morality is very closely related to suffering (which is more objective, or at least axiomatic) and how to end it. So we can at least have a discussion on what is the best method to diminish suffering, and use that to establish a framework for morality.

and where do you get "it's technically subjective" from this

it's subjective insofar as someone could easily go "murder is okay but that's just my opinion"

whereas i could also say "2+2=5, in my opinion"

does the ability to append any statement with "in my opinion" at the end mean that everything is subjective, or is that a needlessly tenuous way to look at the world

I'd say it's subjective because it isn't quantified by reality. The universe doesn't have laws on what is good or bad. Those concepts don't even exist beyond our ability as sentient beings to conceptualize them.

"these concepts don't exist beyond the fact that they exist"

what am i even supposed to do with statements like this

how isn't it quantified by reality—the whole fucking reason we feel any negative sensations whatsoever is to deter us from doing stupid or evil shit, and one of the most basic ways to quantify this is through pain

someone giving you a cupcake is going to be quantifiably better than giving you syphilis—because syphilis is (to any rational person) an intrinsically negative and totally undesirable condition—not because we said so, but because reality said so

i would LOVE to enjoy syphilis, because i enjoy enjoying things—the reason i don't is because it's intrinsically unenjoyable, as practically dictated by reality—it's not an opinion

the way i see it, it's literally no different than math—they're both useful systems that correspond with elements of reality very well, and if you dispute the validity of one on the basis that it doesn't exist beyond human perception, then you must dispute the other for the same exact reason if you want to be logically consistent

you claim that math is different because it's measurable, and because you believe in object permanence—but as i've shown with my relatively crude example, you can measure pleasure and suffering, and just because we don't have a moral equivalent of yardsticks, thermometers, compasses, or clocks at our disposal doesn't mean that we can't use common sense (and most moral questions we get asked on a day-to-day basis are common sense) to determine the moral value of these scenarios

because most of the time, it's not terribly important how bad the suffering is—we don't need exactitude

we can look at a starving child and say "yeah, this is suffering, this is a bad thing" and nobody in their right mind would disagree, just like nobody in their right mind would dispute that a meter is approximately 3 feet long

Morality is inexorably connected to concepts that do not exist beyond our conception of them. The only way I could see morality as objective is if it was defined by the absolute most effective way to eliminate suffering instead of the nature of good and evil.

these definitions are not mutually exclusive

the nature of good = wanting to find, in your words, "the absolute most effective way to eliminate suffering"
the nature of evil = not wanting to find that, or wanting to find the most effective way to perpetuate suffering

i would say if you agree with one definition, you basically must agree with the other

For example, someone may get a tattoo and have to endure a fair amount of pain, but I wouldn't say the tattoo artist is evil for subjecting them to that. A mother may shelter her child from the danger of the world far too much to prevent them from being harmed, but in doing so would prevent them from attaining knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn't consider that to be good.

you cannot "subject" someone to suffering if they asked for it—if someone wants to get a tattoo, and they give you permission to inflict that pain on them, then that's on that person's stupid ass (obviously)

an overprotective mother preventing her child from "attaining knowledge and wisdom" is a little too vague for me to take seriously as a real example—no one in 2018 who is that concerned about their children getting hurt would actually go through with having children in the first place, and even if they would, it's not like i ever claimed that sheltering isn't in and of itself a form of harm—it's a psychological harm, of course—so this is basically just a straw man

or you're just mistakenly assuming that my position is less nuanced than it is, and not something i've put years of consideration into

I think what this boils down to is that I derive morality from how we can reduce suffering while still allowing for freewill to exist, but I don't believe that morality has to be defined or interpreted in that way. I suppose you could say it's sort of a post-modern understanding in that there are virtually an infinite number of ways to interpret what morality is, but I definitely do not consider them to all be equal. There is one interpretation that is objectively the best in regards to reducing suffering while maintaining freewill.

i cannot get behind free will as a concept—it's one of those things, like religion, that just becomes more and more nonsensical as i get older and the more i think about it

if free will exists and is something to be valued, then there's an innate contradiction with how you derive morality—if it's about the reduction of suffering, then you're infringing upon the free will of those who would love nothing more than to cause people suffering, for whatever reasons they may have for it

i say fuck them—but you're saying you'd rather protect that

if you wouldn't, and you'd rather create a world where everyone's will is good-focused in essentially the same way as everyone else, haven't you basically destroyed what you said you wanted to preserve

Quote from: Verbatim on October 01, 2018, 01:37:10 AM

if free will exists and is something to be valued, then there's an innate contradiction with how you derive morality—if it's about the reduction of suffering, then you're infringing upon the free will of those who would love nothing more than to cause people suffering, for whatever reasons they may have for it

?

what good is free will if there's only one type of behavior worth encouraging anyway

for the gratification of using debate as a means to psychological self-harm

acceptable answer

To me the tattoo artist is subjecting them to suffering, it's just that the person being subjected to it is willing to be, thus it doesn't make it morally wrong. Seems to be another disagreement we have about the semantics of the idea of "subjecting."

The overly protective mother scenario is just an example I came up with quickly to show how I understand preventing suffering to not be inherently good. I don't see how it's a strawman because I'm not claiming that it represents your beliefs in anyway. I don't believe it does. It was just an example to illustrate what I think and nothing more.

Honestly, I don't believe your idea of morality is less nuanced than mine, I just think it's different.

In regards to free will, It should be maintained but only up to the point that it isn't treading on another person's right to it. We should all be allowed the maximum amount of liberties that still guarantees we are afforded equal rights. A person can't be allowed the free will to murder because it infringes upon someone else's right to live. A person shouldn't be allowed the free will to steal because it infringes upon someone else's right to the fruits of their labor.