Morality exists

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:22 am

Some values are better than others.

Can't believe I have to defend this idea, but apparently...

Hurting people is wrong!

I'm going to take a bold and some might say egotistical stance here, and bravely assert that it's wrong to harm innocent people.

And I only ask that if anyone accuses me of virtue signaling, you ask why.

Fuck sake.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:34 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Some values are better than others.

Can't believe I have to defend this idea, but apparently...

Hurting people is wrong!

I'm going to take a bold and some might say egotistical stance here, and bravely assert that it's wrong to harm innocent people.

And I only ask that if anyone accuses me of virtue signaling, you ask why.

Fuck sake.

You are contradicting yourself

You claim hurting people is wrong

Then say that is wrong to hurt innocent people

Who decides who is innocent?

Some countries claim homosexuality is not being innocent and immoral. Which is clearly absurd. As it never effects the well being of others.

Homosexuality, hetrosexuality and bisexuality are amoral. Neither moral or immoral. That is how we should look to rationalise this. On whether something has a bases on morality or not

The standard here should be based around a view of the well being of others, but not to the point it is a fixed state. As we never want to go down a path that when are feelings are hurt. That this some how becomes immoral. As then every break up which could hurt the feelings of someone, would then be classed as immoral. Hence we have to be very careful how we define morality, espcially when you throw into the mix a subjective terminology around innocence. As then we have to define innocence and how do we define that based on feelings hurt?

So i agree some values are morally superior to others, but be careful. For saying so could cast you into the mix of being classed as culturally racist by some woke people

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:07 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Some values are better than others.

Can't believe I have to defend this idea, but apparently...

Hurting people is wrong!

I'm going to take a bold and some might say egotistical stance here, and bravely assert that it's wrong to harm innocent people.

And I only ask that if anyone accuses me of virtue signaling, you ask why.

Fuck sake.

I would say ....................wrong to harm innocent and helpless people, like children, the mentally ill, elderly and disabled.

anyone else, innocent or otherwise, stand in my way and i'm going to walk right over you, regardless of harm done to you.

viz yes, you might be a nice pleasant team leader, you might support multiple charities and have a loving family etc etc etc....but if you stand in the way of my promotion i will use any means no matter how dirty to pull you down..

by Maddog Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:25 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Some values are better than others.

Can't believe I have to defend this idea, but apparently...

Hurting people is wrong!

I'm going to take a bold and some might say egotistical stance here, and bravely assert that it's wrong to harm innocent people.

And I only ask that if anyone accuses me of virtue signaling, you ask why.

Fuck sake.

Well, libertarians often live by the NAP, but even that has problems.

There are times when people think they are being helpful, when they are actually being harmful.

by eddie Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:53 pm

People have different sets of morals. Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?
Of course some things are wrong, raping children, hurting animals etc, but some morals are subjective.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:05 pm

eddie wrote:People have different sets of morals. Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?
Of course some things are wrong, raping children, hurting animals etc, but some morals are subjective.

So we can base morality on well being then?

As rape, murder etc effect the wel being of others?

What we should do is never apply this category to things that have nothing to do with morality

Like love, homosexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality etc right?

Those things are amoral

by eddie Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:07 pm

I don’t really understand what you’re asking me didge.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:10 pm

eddie wrote:I don’t really understand what you’re asking me didge.

Soime things are not based on morality and never should be

Yet countries based them on morality

For example

Homosexuality is amoral

Its neither moral or immoral

As it never effects the well being of others

by eddie Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:14 pm

Yes okay, I get what you’re saying on that particular issue, and I agree.

But most morals are still subjective, like porn, for instance. Some people may deem that morally wrong but others do not.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:20 pm

eddie wrote:Yes okay, I get what you’re saying on that particular issue, and I agree.

But most morals are still subjective, like porn, for instance. Some people may deem that morally wrong but others do not.

Well lets use my standard here Eddfie

Does porn effect the well being of others?

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:59 pm

that would depend on the probity of the producers, are they exploiting the "actors, especially the women ?

but morality is entirely subjective and depends on the society within which you live and to an extent your own views on things

by eddie Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:03 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:that would depend on the probity of the producers, are they exploiting the "actors, especially the women ?

but morality is entirely subjective and depends on the society within which you live and to an extent your own views on things

That would be my reply to didge.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:08 pm

Can you call something harmful when there is no victim?

Self-harm aside, of course -- that's where it gets tricky for me.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:17 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:that would depend on the probity of the producers, are they exploiting the "actors, especially the women ?

but morality is entirely subjective and depends on the society within which you live and to an extent your own views on things

My view is many things based on morality have no bases in morality

hence many aspects are amoral

hence why religious people are idiots to me when they base aspects of life on religious morality

Its religion that creates a situation that makes things amoral to be immoral

That is what is fucked up mate

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:19 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Can you call something harmful when there is no victim?

Self-harm aside, of course -- that's where it gets tricky for me.

Interesting point and yes I can name something

Anti Vaxxing beliefs

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:21 pm

define victim? define harm
I mean...can a whore be raped, or is it the much lesser crime of mere theft?
can a drug dealer be murdered or is it merely "pesticide"?

is it really moraly reprehensible to ignore the junkie dying in the gutter
is it really morally reprehensible to desire the removal of warning lables off most things that carry them, on the basis of "darwins law" (i mean does a knife REALLY need a warning of "care has sharp edges")? no shit sherlock.......

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:26 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:define victim? define harm
I mean...can a whore be raped, or is it the much lesser crime of mere theft?
can a drug dealer be murdered or is it merely "pesticide"?

is it really moraly reprehensible to ignore the junkie dying in the gutter
is it really morally reprehensible to desire the removal of warning lables off most things that carry them, on the basis of "darwins law" (i mean does a knife REALLY need a warning of "care has sharp edges")? no shit sherlock.......

1) immoral as rape is immoral as no consent has been given
2) Immoral. no matter the crime of the druge dealer, its never self defense to to kill a drug dealer unless it helps save and prevent lives
3) Yes it is immoral when you can do something to save a human life. If your view is based on their lifestyle to not save them. Then you have no morality of human life yourself
4) Yes it is immoral to remove labels because there is people in society that are idiots and most of all this is based on insurance companies covering their arses mate

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:32 pm

1 )theres no consent given when something is stolen
2)killing a drug dealer will always prevent deaths and also help prevent others being dragged into a life of sordid misery
3) I'm not my brothers keeper
3a human life isnt sacred, protected in law maybe under most circumstances, and fair enough, but not sacred...

4 idiots deserve what they get...perhaps if we implemented the removal of warning lables folks would start taking some responsibility for their own safety, if not hard luck#

I made the tool idiot proof...then they invented a better idiot......

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:32 pm

I aimagine Victor will bust my balls on this, but I am knacked and very sleepy

All the best everyone and goodnight

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:39 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:1 )theres no consent given when something is stolen
2)killing a drug dealer will always prevent deaths and also help prevent others being dragged into a life of sordid misery
3) I'm not my brothers keeper
3a human life isnt sacred
4 idiots deserve what they get...perhaps if we implemented the removal of warning lables folks would start taking some responsibility for their own safety, if not hard luck#

I made the tool idiot proof...then they invented a better idiot......

I will answer this before I go to bed

1) Makes litterally no sense on consent. If someone is raped, consent is not given
2) How does that view pan out in South America? How did that work out with prohibition in the US? When as seen it incresed crime. The key would be to decriminalise
3) If life is not sacred, then any life is forfeit? Nobody made a view on this but that the well being of people is important. As nobody wouold argue against the well being of themselves. Unless suicidal
4) you need to define what an idiot is, which is also subjective. based on your reasoning and with the nazis classing jews as idiots. By classing them as subhuman. You would back the extermination of the Jews mate. Want to rethink your position on this?

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:56 pm

1)if someone is robbed consent is not given , the focus is on the object of loss...
2) but you cannot argue the fact that id the dealer is dead, he cant draw someone into the sordid life of drugs...
3)true, however rather than any life being forfeit, no life would be protected, BUT thats why we have laws on these things.....and why under certain circumstances someones life may indeed be forfeit....attack me or a member of my family and see the truth in that.....
4)thats conflation didge...an appeal to the argument of nazi....doesnt wash
hitler condemned an entire "group" of people
I'm talking about the the individuals who are too stupid to understand that sticking your dick into a hoover hose and switching on is NOT a great idea.....Sorry, but if you cant forsee that that will have unfortunate repercussions....the fact your willy is no longer functional is just reward.
I'm talking about the idiot who cant comprehand that a packet of peanuts contains....erm.....peanuts
and on a more serious not the idiot that thinks staggering all over the road at night in dark clothes blind drunk is a great idea, and its the other road users responsibility to not hit him....

whilst I would totally agree with the health and safety statement that is on all h&S posters that "you are responsible for your health and safety and that of others " (with the implication that that applies to YOUR OWN actions, i.e you shouldnt do something to negligently or maliciously endanger others) that does NOT imply I have a duty to save or protect others from their own stupidity, unless they are of impaired judgement due to age (either too young or old and senile), mental condition or illness or injury.
And i do NOT include the dying junkie in any of those since they were rational being before they embarked on a decision to become a pathetic scrap of humanity.

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:07 pm

Its not an appeal to the nazis?????????????????
You went off stupidity which is subjective as a position to destroy people
If you hold a subjevtive view on intelligence that would mean litteraly eliminating all people mentally retarded, again just as the Nazis did
It would also mean removing people with mental lhealth problems like dementia
So when you based idiocy as a reason based on the most subjective view point and fail to see how that is open to abuse. Then sorry buddy. Then on that issue, you are opening the door to the most abhorant abuse. Not based on any reason but the most insane and retarded view point based around the mistakes of people and their intelligence

Night mate, but you made a pigs ear of an argument here and I certainly expected better

All the best mate

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:14 pm

you failed then to notice that i did indeed differentiate between the "stupid" and those who are incapacitated?

perhaps we differ in what we define as stupidity?

stupidity requires a degree of wilful idiocy, rather than a lack of mental accuity

but with nearly all warnings, if someone is able to actually use the item correctly then they do not require warnings...

or are you proposing that someone who is sufficiently incapable of comprehending a knife is sharp is actually able to comprehend and understand a written warning to that effect...I doubt it.

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:18 pm

the problem isnt the incapacitated..its the "fractally stupid"...i.e those who are too stupid to realise they are in fact stupid
thats why we had to have part P of the wiring regs, because some people were just to stupid to realise they were incompetent to manage the simple task of connecting up 3 different coloured wires to the right places Rolling Eyes

a task I could teach the averagely intelligent 10 year old

by Guest Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:you failed then to notice that i did indeed differentiate between the "stupid" and those who are incapacitated?

perhaps we differ in what we define as stupidity?

stupidity requires a degree of wilful idiocy, rather than a lack of mental accuity

but with nearly all warnings, if someone is able to actually use the item correctly then they do not require warnings...

or are you proposing that someone who is sufficiently incapable of comprehending a knife is sharp is actually able to comprehend and understand a written warning to that effect...I doubt it.

Stupidity is neither a crme or immoral when it deoes not effect the well being of others

As where do you draw the line here?

A child we make many stupid mistakes

People have died when there is warnings with work place accidents

So I am sorry but I do not share your view on morality here around stupidity. As its blatanatly open to abuse

Night buddy, am shattered and wish you all the best

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:20 pm

oh and intelligence has nothing to do with stupidity...some of the most stupid people i have had to deal with have been PhD's and above IQ of 295...and the common sense of a house brick.

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:24 pm

phildidge wrote:
Victorismyhero wrote:you failed then to notice that i did indeed differentiate between the "stupid" and those who are incapacitated?

perhaps we differ in what we define as stupidity?

stupidity requires a degree of wilful idiocy, rather than a lack of mental accuity

but with nearly all warnings, if someone is able to actually use the item correctly then they do not require warnings...

or are you proposing that someone who is sufficiently incapable of comprehending a knife is sharp is actually able to comprehend and understand a written warning to that effect...I doubt it.

Stupidity is neither a crme or immoral when it deoes not effect the well being of others

I never said it was...I said it shouldnt be pandered to in fact for the good of the human genome perhaps the stupid gene should be allowed to die out

As where do you draw the line here?

just remove all warnings......the line would draw itself

A child we make many stupid mistakes

thats why we have parents..who should not be stupid

People have died when there is warnings with work place accidents

someone wasnt doing their job correctly, and then that involves someone being the victim of someone elses negligence/stupidity which is a good argument for eliminating the stupid gene.

So I am sorry but I do not share your view on morality here around stupidity. As its blatanatly open to abuse

Night buddy, am shattered and wish you all the best

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:28 pm

ok so there isnt AFAIK a "stupid gene" but you know what i mean

by Guest Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:22 pm

1. Morality is concerned with Right and Wrong.
2. Right and Wrong are concerned with Conclusions.
3. Conclusions are concerned with Logic.
/∴Morality is concerned with Logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9yKLvlkYfM&feature=youtu.be

Very interesting and wel worth watching

Its less than 7 minutes

by Sponsored content

Morality exists

Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists

Re: Morality exists