It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[buckshot24]

If Brad's entire family was murdered in front of his eyes I wonder if he'd consider that "not a benefit to society" or something else.

Brad, do you think Nikki Minaj is a "benefit to society"? If she isn't are you going to try and get her to stop making music? Is Nikki Minaj immoral in that case? Should she be stopped (she's affecting many more people than a garden variety rapist)? Should we put people in prison for not "benefitting" society?

 

[buckshot24]

You are not answering my question.

Of course I'm not answering your question, I'm granting you your premise!

I seem to be using it correctly, but I cannot see where you disagree with me. Morality can be explained as right and or wrong in terms of long term benefit to society.

You're assuming the prospering of the species is good.

So, do you agree that morality is the thing that benefits society in the long run? If not, can you give me an example?

No I don't. But I'll grant you that it is so we can have a discussion. So please quit asking me for counter examples. I'm not contending the point.

 

[chipwitch]

Morality is nothing but "that thing" inside a person's mind that tells them they should act contrary to their desire. Period. It's the thing that sets us apart from animals. They don't have it.

It is a grave error to presume that those same desires are universally shared. It is an even greater error that the compulsion to act contrary to those desires are "universal" or "objective". Once one makes the second error, they can only explain it by constructing a god to account for this "universal" or "objective" indefinable thing (morality). The mere realization that the only people who share the same morality, are people raised within an isolated culture, is simply not enough evidence to convince them that the whole idea of "universal morality" was a fabrication of their own mind or that of a mentor.

 

[bshole]

Morality is nothing but "that thing" inside a person's mind that tells them they should act contrary to their desire. Period. It's the thing that sets us apart from animals. They don't have it.

Absolutely wrong. You can teach a dog not to eat food while it is in front of them. Dogs can feel guilt if they do wrong. It is a sliding scale. It is no no way unique to humans.

 

[realibrad]

If Brad's entire family was murdered in front of his eyes I wonder if he'd consider that "not a benefit to society" or something else.

Brad, do you think Nikki Minaj is a "benefit to society"? If she isn't are you going to try and get her to stop making music? Is Nikki Minaj immoral in that case? Should she be stopped (she's affecting many more people than a garden variety rapist)? Should we put people in prison for not "benefitting" society?

Easy enough.

If my family were to be murdered, the society first loses in their productivity. Further, a society that does not care about murder will not do anything to stop it. Murder rates will go up, further productivity lost. There is then the fact that people seeing that they must protect themselves will invest individually into their protection. This will limit future investment for short term gain. Society will not have the long term growth. We see this very thing in places like Africa.

Now for Nikki. Nikki offers entertainment. Entertainment is a release on many different levels. It can allow you to sympathize and understand. It can make you feel happy, or sad allow you to explore emotions. When you take away a type of entertainment, people seek another. Look at prohibition . During that time, the nation was full of drunks. Its not like today where most people only drink in their off time. Back then, people consumed a lot more alcohol. Prohibition was a backlash in an attempt to deal with the problem of everyone being drunk. The problem was that when you took away that form of entertainment, people did far worse to be entertained.

So, both of your comments have been explained through utility.

 

[realibrad]

Of course I'm not answering your question, I'm granting you your premise!
You're assuming the prospering of the species is good.
No I don't. But I'll grant you that it is so we can have a discussion. So please quit asking me for counter examples. I'm not contending the point.

If you are granting my premise, then you are agreeing with me that morality is what brings about long term gain to society. If you are disagreeing with my premise, then you should explain why you disagree.

What is it that you are doing if not disagreeing with me?

 

[bshole]

Easy enough.

If my family were to be murdered, the society first loses in their productivity. Further, a society that does not care about murder will not do anything to stop it. Murder rates will go up, further productivity lost. There is then the fact that people seeing that they must protect themselves will invest individually into their protection. This will limit future investment for short term gain. Society will not have the long term growth. We see this very thing in places like Africa.

Yea, the species would go extinct in a few generations....

 

[Grooveriding]

^ this +1


Then this? Both are sets of codes of conduct. Both provide punitive measures. A lack of desire of something isn't evidence of morality.

I have no desire to eat ketchup straight from the bottle. It is NOT evidence that it is "wrong" to do so.

First, rape is rarely about sex. It's usually about violence and/or domination and/or control. Second, people don't generally rape because it isn't in their self interest to do so. Self interest is the very basis for ALL morality.

Objectively we can define negative results of certain behaviours, like murder for example, where the net result is not beneficial. Of course, objectively, under the right circumstance, you can find a situation where the net result of murder is positive. Even then the weighing of the net result in either situation is subjective. So in hindsight I would agree with you that morals are difficult to define as objective.

I think a comfortable statement without getting numbers is there are observable majority consensuses on certain behaviours being negative under most circumstances. Although, even that statement is open to subjectivity on the circumstances in which what is generally unacceptable behaviour can become acceptable. Say we hit a tipping point where there is just not enough food and water relative to the Earth's population. People need to die in this situation and die in vast numbers. While it is necessary and objectively the right action to preserve the species, subjectively most people will have great difficulty being the ones that live and seeing all the rest die. To really understand this we need to have a full understanding of what we call empathy and how the brain creates that function. These sorts of metrics are very difficult to discuss, because ultimately it relates to human consciousness and consciousness is one of the least understood aspects of human physiology. There was likely a time where our genetic ancestors gave no thought to violence, when we operated more from instinct than conscious thought.

Until we have a vastly better understanding of the brain and can disseminate the granularity of its functions, it will continue to be difficult. Brains are unique in that their functions are so diverse, particularly in humans, and the way their functions manifest in observable behaviours are nowhere near fully understood. It's not like a heart where we can observe the muscle receiving an electric impulse, contracting in response and pumping blood. 'OK, this is why our blood flows, we breath and our systems are provided with oxygen and nutrients' A very straightforward and utility function in comparison to the brain. We understand that different areas of the brain are responsible for different functions, we have an understanding of how the brain communicates in its self - the pathways it uses and the chemical processes taking place - but the why of exactly how all this function hit a tipping point that led to consciousness is still unknown.

One of the best data points we could use would be the ability to study another animal that has evolved to a state of consciousness as well and their observable expressed thoughts on behaviours we generally label as negative. Unfortunately we have not yet encountered such a species. We do understand some of the characteristics of the primate brain that make it unique from other animals and define a difference in humans from having the largest example of one. Our brains scale linearly in neuron count with size and that leads to a higher density of neurons than other species relative to brain size. This explains a lot of that. The idea is that as we evolved and our brain size increased we experienced evolutionary events that led to increases in our cognitive abilities.

Ultimately we don't know enough about how the brain works is the TLDR. In the context of religion this falls under the umbrella of all its other attempts to take the easy way and claim to have the answers to what we haven't put in the effort and time to understand yet. It's like the claims at first that the Earth spawned in seven days and then people were plunked down as a single man and woman. We've now learned the Earth is much older than that and took billions of years to progress from simple life to more complex species. Also that genetically you cannot propagate a species from a single male and female example. We did not always know these things, just like we currently can't fully explain how it is exactly our brains lead to our observable behaviours. Fortunately there are people studying that question and not taking the easy way out.

 

[buckshot24]

Easy enough.

If my family were to be murdered, the society first loses in their productivity. Further, a society that does not care about murder will not do anything to stop it. Murder rates will go up, further productivity lost. There is then the fact that people seeing that they must protect themselves will invest individually into their protection. This will limit future investment for short term gain. Society will not have the long term growth. We see this very thing in places like Africa.

Your family (hypothetical) is full of dead beats who refuse to work and live off the government teet.

The problem with this is that this isn't why you'd think the actions were wrong and you know it. Nobody thinks this way in such situations.

Now for Nikki. Nikki offers entertainment. Entertainment is a release on many different levels. It can allow you to sympathize and understand. It can make you feel happy, or sad allow you to explore emotions. When you take away a type of entertainment, people seek another.

What is Nikki's contributions making people sympathize with and understand that they wouldn't without her and why is that good for society? Perhaps understanding others and sympathizing with them prevents you from doing what is ultimately better for society.

Look at prohibition . During that time, the nation was full of drunks. Its not like today where most people only drink in their off time. Back then, people consumed a lot more alcohol. Prohibition was a backlash in an attempt to deal with the problem of everyone being drunk. The problem was that when you took away that form of entertainment, people did far worse to be entertained.

Like what? What form of entertainment did they do that was worse? And what does "worse" mean? Saying something is worse assumes there is a best. Saying something is worse says it is further away from an ideal than something else. Do you believe there is this ideal? If not then nothing can be worse or better in reality just different.

So, both of your comments have been explained through utility.

Maybe you're just having a bad day or you're simply doing this on purpose, I don't know. I'm not arguing against your utility claim. I want to examine this assuming it is true.

Now, is it ok to kill people who are doing absolutely nothing to better the community? Not only that but are a drain on society. Who decides?

 

[buckshot24]

If you are granting my premise, then you are agreeing with me that morality is what brings about long term gain to society. If you are disagreeing with my premise, then you should explain why you disagree.

What is it that you are doing if not disagreeing with me?

You're not this stupid. I am not agreeing with your premise I am GRANTING it for the sake of discussion. If you can't get it from here, we're done.

 

[brycejones]

we're done.

Please Jesus make it stop. This poor thread has been buckshat enough.

 

[MongGrel]

Please Jesus make it stop. This poor thread has been buckshat enough.

I hate when that happens.

D:

 

[chipwitch]

Absolutely wrong. You can teach a dog not to eat food while it is in front of them. Dogs can feel guilt if they do wrong. It is a sliding scale. It is no no way unique to humans.

I think you're anthropomorphizing animals. How do you know dogs feel guilt?

 

[realibrad]

Your family (hypothetical) is full of dead beats who refuse to work and live off the government teet.

The problem with this is that this isn't why you'd think the actions were wrong and you know it. Nobody thinks this way in such situations.

If my family were to do that, then they would be doing something immoral. If your argument is that my family was killed because they choose to do that, the reaction is also immoral.

Again, its really simple. If you start killing off people for being under productive, then you get people who have broken incentives. They are going to fake productivity, and mistrust the system. People will want to exclude themselves from the system and work outside of it. That will further reduce productivity. Also, there is the wasted resources that the people had consumed to only be wasted by killing them.

What is Nikki's contributions making people sympathize with and understand that they wouldn't without her and why is that good for society? Perhaps understanding others and sympathizing with them prevents you from doing what is ultimately better for society.

Its like you just totally skipped my explanation about alcohol. If people do not have something to entertain them, then they seek other things that are usually far worse. Her music is enjoyable to many people. I personally enjoy itty bitty piggy. If people dont have things to enjoy, then they will be far less productive or seek things that are possibly more damaging. So again, utility increasing.

Like what? What form of entertainment did they do that was worse? And what does "worse" mean?

Well considering the argument is about utility, I'm going to say worse equals utility. It is what I have been saying this whole time.

As for the worse form, well it was bootlegging. You know, the thing that gave rise to a huge criminal underground that helped create people like Bugs Moran that killed a bunch of people. Do you not know American history?

Saying something is worse assumes there is a best. Saying something is worse says it is further away from an ideal than something else. Do you believe there is this ideal? If not then nothing can be worse or better in reality just different.

No, do not shift the burden onto me. I have given examples and you are the one saying there are counter examples. I have made my claim, and given reasons to support it. You have claimed that my logic is incorrect but have yet to support anything.

Maybe you're just having a bad day or you're simply doing this on purpose, I don't know. I'm not arguing against your utility claim. I want to examine this assuming it is true.

Examine what. I have already laid out the argument. I have given examples. What else do you need me to explain?

Now, is it ok to kill people who are doing absolutely nothing to better the community? Not only that but are a drain on society. Who decides?

First, who would decide they are not being productive. Right now that is impossible in so many ways, that any attempt would reduce productivity. This is basic econ 101 there guy. In trying to measure and regulate something, you are very likely to reduce the productivity.

Again, this goes back to the other point you made about families living off the government. If you start killing people, then you give them an incentive to try and work around the system. We simply dont have the ability to measure enough things to say if the majority of people are productive.

So the answer is that nobody is to measure productivity in those terms right now.

 

[Moonbeam]

So, I have something internal compelling me to truth and something else compelling me to deception. I have no ability to tell the difference and yet somehow I am supposed to figure out which one is right through feelings, which are already corrupted.

I told you your situation is hopeless and there you go trying to escape. That is your trap. You think to escape. Stop with the thinking and be. There's no trap to being. It's in surrender that trap disappears. The goodness you long to exist already is.

 

[buckshot24]

If my family were to do that, then they would be doing something immoral. If your argument is that my family was killed because they choose to do that, the reaction is also immoral.

Nobody, in practice, thinks the way you're arguing. If your family were killed you wouldn't start doing utility equations to see whether they were good for the society or not. NOBODY does utility equations.

In my hypothetical your family is a drain on society and not doing anything to further the well-being of the species. They are actually hurting the well being of society because they are stealing resources from those who would benefit society. Is it ok to kill them? Should they be killed to better society?

Again, its really simple. If you start killing off people for being under productive, then you get people who have broken incentives.

So what? Is a person morally justified in wiping out those who are taking resources from those who would actually be a benefit to society?

They are going to fake productivity, and mistrust the system.

So what? I want to know how your morality works not set up a utopia.

That will further reduce productivity. Also, there is the wasted resources that the people had consumed to only be wasted by killing them.

A couple bullets isn't a lot of resources.

Its like you just totally skipped my explanation about alcohol. If people do not have something to entertain them, then they seek other things that are usually far worse. Her music is enjoyable to many people. I personally enjoy itty bitty piggy. If people dont have things to enjoy, then they will be far less productive or seek things that are possibly more damaging. So again, utility increasing.

So you won't answer the question? Your explanation about alcohol doesn't seem to help me find your answer.

As for the worse form, well it was bootlegging. You know, the thing that gave rise to a huge criminal underground that helped create people like Bugs Moran that killed a bunch of people. Do you not know American history?

Don't condescend because you can't explain yourself.

People didn't find another form of entertainment they found the SAME form of entertainment. Providing it is what caused the rest of the problems.

No, do not shift the burden onto me. I have given examples and you are the one saying there are counter examples.

No I didn't. This is a lie and I've told you numerous times that it isn't correct.

I have made my claim, and given reasons to support it. You have claimed that my logic is incorrect but have yet to support anything.

Sigh...

I'm trying to explore the consequences of the truth of your logic. Brad, you're not an idiot, quit acting like one.

Examine what. I have already laid out the argument. I have given examples. What else do you need me to explain?

If what you are saying is true then there are consequences. Maybe you're not acting.

First, who would decide they are not being productive.

Doesn't matter. I'm saying that they ARE producing nothing to better society and even worsening it by taking resources from those who could, if they had the resources, better society. Remember, I'm not setting up a government or society with you. I want to know if killing somebody is morally right IF they are producing nothing to better society and they are actually stealing from those who could if they had the resources. Lets just assume for the sake of discussion we knew this 100% certain. Should they be killed, is letting them live morally wrong?

Again, this goes back to the other point you made about families living off the government. If you start killing people, then you give them an incentive to try and work around the system. We simply dont have the ability to measure enough things to say if the majority of people are productive.

Yes but we're not setting up a governmental program, we're having a discussion about your version of morality.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I think you're anthropomorphizing animals. How do you know dogs feel guilt?

How do you know people feel guilt?

 

[chipwitch]

How do you know people feel guilt?

You ever met my mother?

 

[chipwitch]

If people say they feel guilt, I take them at their word.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Part of growing up is learning to be responsible for and managing your urges. Other people are going to have boobs, deal with it.

So we can stop providing condoms in schools because teens need to learn to just deal with their sexual impulses??? LOL

 

[1prophet]

So we can stop providing condoms in schools because teens need to learn to just deal with their sexual impulses??? LOL

That's a bullshit straw man question,

Many European schools and cities have public condom dispensers, seen them personally,

They have nothing to do with the ability or inability of a man to control his sexual impulses around a women who is dressed like this (and use it to blame the woman for rape or sexual assault)

instead of this

 

[chipwitch]

So we can stop providing condoms in schools because teens need to learn to just deal with their sexual impulses??? LOL

Typical. Conservatives can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. Anything else you can't understand?

 

[realibrad]

Nobody, in practice, thinks the way you're arguing. If your family were killed you wouldn't start doing utility equations to see whether they were good for the society or not. NOBODY does utility equations.

You are trying to twist this into something I did not argue. I said morality can be explained as a function of utility, and does not need religion. Regardless of the fact that most dont think that way, its still true that you can find morality through logic.

In my hypothetical your family is a drain on society and not doing anything to further the well-being of the species. They are actually hurting the well being of society because they are stealing resources from those who would benefit society. Is it ok to kill them? Should they be killed to better society?

Yes, I understand your premise. The argument that I am making is that a society that would kill those people would be built off of fear. That fear would reduce peoples productive ability. Further, I would also say that trying to factor someones full potential is almost impossible. There are plenty of people that seem useless but become very productive. Our world is built off the backs of only a few people. I would never want a society where the state decides because they have a horrible track record. So, you can't have a fully productive society in that system.

So what? Is a person morally justified in wiping out those who are taking resources from those who would actually be a benefit to society?

Depends on the context. If a warlord were going around cutting off peoples hands, that would reduce productivity and or resources. I would be in full support of killing that person. You are trying to think of situations in such a small minded way that you are missing the point.

So what? I want to know how your morality works not set up a utopia.

I don't need to establish what a utopia is to validate my point that morality can be found through logic. Again, you are trying to shift things.

A couple bullets isn't a lot of resources.

I was not only talking about the bullets. I was talking about the resources that went into the people being killed. I presume in your hypothetical that people were fed, clothed ect. Once you kill them, you have lost the investment.

So you won't answer the question? Your explanation about alcohol doesn't seem to help me find your answer.
Don't condescend because you can't explain yourself.

People didn't find another form of entertainment they found the SAME form of entertainment. Providing it is what caused the rest of the problems.
No I didn't. This is a lie and I've told you numerous times that it isn't correct.
Sigh...

They absolutely found a different form of entertainment. The previous situation was drinking in legal bars. The new situation was drinking in speakeasies. Very different environment. In the simplest of ways they are different. Once legal drinking was brought back, people opted to do the legal bars and abandon the illegal ones. Drinking was still very much regulated when it was brought back, so people could have chosen to still go to illegal bars, but they did not. Its as clear of an economic choice as you can get.

I'm trying to explore the consequences of the truth of your logic. Brad, you're not an idiot, quit acting like one.
If what you are saying is true then there are consequences. Maybe you're not acting.

You have made a positive claim here. Saying there are consequences that I have not laid out is a claim. Back it up.

There are outcomes of using logic to establish morality. You need to make a valid argument logically to say something is moral. The outcome is not 100% perfect as nobody has the ability to reason on that level yet, but the outcomes are far better than religious ones.

Keep in mind, my claim is that you can find morality through logic and you do not need religion to do it.

Doesn't matter. I'm saying that they ARE producing nothing to better society and even worsening it by taking resources from those who could, if they had the resources, better society. Remember, I'm not setting up a government or society with you. I want to know if killing somebody is morally right IF they are producing nothing to better society and they are actually stealing from those who could if they had the resources. Lets just assume for the sake of discussion we knew this 100% certain. Should they be killed, is letting them live morally wrong?

No, it would be morally wrong.

The reason for this is that we are flawed creatures and make flawed choices. That flawed perspective means you must always carry doubt. You are setting up a hypothetical that is not congruence with its self. You are talking about people, and then trying to use 100% certainty. Those two things are mutually exclusive. If we were talking about binary systems, then yes, kill off the unproductive things. Humans are too complex to be measured to the point where you can kill them for being unproductive.

If you want to argue a hypothetical where people have perfect information, then they would have ascended to the point where resources are not limited, and the argument would thus fall apart. What makes un-productivity immoral is that it takes away from others without choice. If resources are not limited, then morality does not matter there.

Yes but we're not setting up a governmental program, we're having a discussion about your version of morality.

That is not what we have been discussing. Remember, this is what I said to your originally...

I bet the vast majority of what you consider to be moral could easily be explained as a utility maximizing long term gain.

You have tried to shift this into something I never said or started talking about. I am going to stick to the point and arguments I have made, and you are free to twist and turn all you like.

 

[realibrad]

Typical. Conservatives can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. Anything else you can't understand?

I dont think that was his argument though. The whole reason the left pushes for sex ed that is not abstinence only is that teens have urges and they will have sex even if its a bad idea. I happen to agree that we should give out condoms and have sex ed. The point though is logical. If teens are going to make bad choices and sometimes have sex when they should not, then they are giving in to their biological urges. Sometimes those urges are consensual and sometimes they are not.

 

[Moonbeam]

If people say they feel guilt, I take them at their word.

I would have asked him how he knows anything. Make him practice at knowing so he'll have the mental muscles to lift that question himself.