Dennis's Mistakes on Morality
posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 5:36PM
posted by Lucifer on July 25th, 2023 at 5:36PM
From: https://thewaywardaxolotl....came-amoral.html
> "Only creatures that have the mental capacity to conceive of abstract rules can be bound and protected by said rules - and only if they reciprocate."
That is very arbitrary. By the same logic, a newborn infant or a person with severe dementia may not be protected by the Libertarian NAP if they lack the mentally ability to understand it. Most people would disagree and insist that those humans deserve the same legal protections as more mentally capable humans.
> "Morality = universally preferable behavior"
No, Morality is not "universally preferable behavior". You just made that up. Most people in Japan, the United States, and Europe view the assassination of Shinzo Abe to be a "morally bad" thing since they like Japan, but most people in China and Korea view his assassination to be a "morally good" thing because they hate Japan. If it was truly the case that it is "universally preferable" to condemn murder, then why are there hundreds of millions people who applaud the assassination and celebrate the assassin as a hero?
> "Humans aren't fighting over the last bits of air, land, water, etc."
That's literally what they've done all throughout modern history, with the main exception being the modern era.
> "Our competitions are chosen / voluntary."
No, they aren't. If competition was truly voluntary, then there would be no competition at all because everyone would avoid it. One of the most fundamental principles of geopolitics is that selfish players (countries in this case) will compete against each other for scarce resources. And there are no permanent friends, only temporary allies for as long as the right conditions for cooperation hold true.
> "Having one more human born on this planet won't hurt any existing human."
If it's exactly *one* human, then probably not. But it isn't. The world population is increasing by several tens of millions of humans every year. Only a fool would say that there's no way this continuing trend could ever go wrong on a planet with finite resources. Unlimited population growth is unsustainable, and that's what we're heading towards.
> "The energies in our ecosystems aren't that scarce"
Yes they are, and they always have been. And it will only become more apparent as the world population continues to grow. If that continues, all it will take is another major crisis or two to make the world's food/resource supplies trip up and unable to keep up. Then you'll catch a glimpse of how biological systems have *always* work.
> "Being selfish is okay. You've been brainwashed to think it's wrong."
If anybody thinks that being selfish is wrong, then that would be you. You think that it's "evil" to have children that you cannot feed, even if that turns out to be the most successful (and selfish) reproductive strategy. You also deem many so-called "immoral" behaviors to be "universally wrong", even though they're motivated by selfish desires, whereas I don't view them to be universally wrong nor universally right.
> "Morality, defined as universal preferable behaviors, does exist."
Since you keep using the descriptor "universally preferable", it seems that you care about what the greatest number of people would consider to be moral or immoral, right? If so, then you should pay your taxes instead of trying to evade it. The vast majority of people consider taxation to be preferable and morally right, and since it's impossible to reach a 100% consensus by everybody anyway, you should be in favor of taxation and paying your taxes too, if you want to be "moral" anyway (according to most people's brains and mirror neurons).
> "Modern moral theory says you aren't obligated to help him."
Modern Liberals disagree with you. Who's to say that your beliefs are more correct than theirs, besides yourself?
> Other species are not subject to the same moral protections as us, since they can neither conceive nor reciprocate moral norms.
If that's true, then human babies, severely retarded people, and the mentally disabled elderly do not have the same legal protections as everyone else, which contradicts most people's moral intuitions, at least in today's world anyway. Though I am indifferent since I understand that literally nothing is objectively immoral.
> "but even so using more energy in the ecosystem doesn't necessarily harm other species."
Yes it does. The Industrial Revolution was powered by fossil fuels, which fundamentally changed the Earth, caused tons of pollution, and lead to the sixth largest mass extinction event in the Earth's history. As another example, humans have had to breed literally billions of livestock animals inside slaughterhouses in order to generate enough meat to feed the planet, and yet it still isn't enough, in part because the human population won't stop growing.
> Animals shouldn't breed if there isn't enough energy around to sustain themselves. Just like a mother is being cruel/evil if she has babies that she cannot feed.
And yet animals will still breed anyway irregardless. If there's a famine and civilization collapses, the most reasonable thing to do from a biological/evolutionary/game-theoretic point-of-view is to take what you can and give nothing back. Because that is what will maximize your reproductive success. And all the organisms that follow that strategy will spread their genes to a greater extent, whereas the most altruistic ones who choose to have fewer offspring will have their kind die out. You don't seem to understand biology or evolutionary theory very well...
> "Only creatures that have the mental capacity to conceive of abstract rules can be bound and protected by said rules - and only if they reciprocate."
That is very arbitrary. By the same logic, a newborn infant or a person with severe dementia may not be protected by the Libertarian NAP if they lack the mentally ability to understand it. Most people would disagree and insist that those humans deserve the same legal protections as more mentally capable humans.
> "Morality = universally preferable behavior"
No, Morality is not "universally preferable behavior". You just made that up. Most people in Japan, the United States, and Europe view the assassination of Shinzo Abe to be a "morally bad" thing since they like Japan, but most people in China and Korea view his assassination to be a "morally good" thing because they hate Japan. If it was truly the case that it is "universally preferable" to condemn murder, then why are there hundreds of millions people who applaud the assassination and celebrate the assassin as a hero?
> "Humans aren't fighting over the last bits of air, land, water, etc."
That's literally what they've done all throughout modern history, with the main exception being the modern era.
> "Our competitions are chosen / voluntary."
No, they aren't. If competition was truly voluntary, then there would be no competition at all because everyone would avoid it. One of the most fundamental principles of geopolitics is that selfish players (countries in this case) will compete against each other for scarce resources. And there are no permanent friends, only temporary allies for as long as the right conditions for cooperation hold true.
> "Having one more human born on this planet won't hurt any existing human."
If it's exactly *one* human, then probably not. But it isn't. The world population is increasing by several tens of millions of humans every year. Only a fool would say that there's no way this continuing trend could ever go wrong on a planet with finite resources. Unlimited population growth is unsustainable, and that's what we're heading towards.
> "The energies in our ecosystems aren't that scarce"
Yes they are, and they always have been. And it will only become more apparent as the world population continues to grow. If that continues, all it will take is another major crisis or two to make the world's food/resource supplies trip up and unable to keep up. Then you'll catch a glimpse of how biological systems have *always* work.
> "Being selfish is okay. You've been brainwashed to think it's wrong."
If anybody thinks that being selfish is wrong, then that would be you. You think that it's "evil" to have children that you cannot feed, even if that turns out to be the most successful (and selfish) reproductive strategy. You also deem many so-called "immoral" behaviors to be "universally wrong", even though they're motivated by selfish desires, whereas I don't view them to be universally wrong nor universally right.
> "Morality, defined as universal preferable behaviors, does exist."
Since you keep using the descriptor "universally preferable", it seems that you care about what the greatest number of people would consider to be moral or immoral, right? If so, then you should pay your taxes instead of trying to evade it. The vast majority of people consider taxation to be preferable and morally right, and since it's impossible to reach a 100% consensus by everybody anyway, you should be in favor of taxation and paying your taxes too, if you want to be "moral" anyway (according to most people's brains and mirror neurons).
> "Modern moral theory says you aren't obligated to help him."
Modern Liberals disagree with you. Who's to say that your beliefs are more correct than theirs, besides yourself?
> Other species are not subject to the same moral protections as us, since they can neither conceive nor reciprocate moral norms.
If that's true, then human babies, severely retarded people, and the mentally disabled elderly do not have the same legal protections as everyone else, which contradicts most people's moral intuitions, at least in today's world anyway. Though I am indifferent since I understand that literally nothing is objectively immoral.
> "but even so using more energy in the ecosystem doesn't necessarily harm other species."
Yes it does. The Industrial Revolution was powered by fossil fuels, which fundamentally changed the Earth, caused tons of pollution, and lead to the sixth largest mass extinction event in the Earth's history. As another example, humans have had to breed literally billions of livestock animals inside slaughterhouses in order to generate enough meat to feed the planet, and yet it still isn't enough, in part because the human population won't stop growing.
> Animals shouldn't breed if there isn't enough energy around to sustain themselves. Just like a mother is being cruel/evil if she has babies that she cannot feed.
And yet animals will still breed anyway irregardless. If there's a famine and civilization collapses, the most reasonable thing to do from a biological/evolutionary/game-theoretic point-of-view is to take what you can and give nothing back. Because that is what will maximize your reproductive success. And all the organisms that follow that strategy will spread their genes to a greater extent, whereas the most altruistic ones who choose to have fewer offspring will have their kind die out. You don't seem to understand biology or evolutionary theory very well...
|
posted by dennisn on July 25th, 2023 at 9:53PM
> [requiring cognitive capacity to understand abstract rules] is very arbitrary.
No it's not. It's kinda an obvious mother fucking implication. > By the same logic, a newborn infant or a person with severe dementia may not be protected by the Libertarian NAP. Yea, kinda. Animals too. What's your point? You got a better alternative? You think newborn infants should be legally responsible for any contracts they agree to, as per your wanting them to have "the same legal protections [and resonsibilities]"? > No, Morality is not "universally preferable behavior". Yes it is. It has always been this. For example, "thou shalt not murder" is (1) universal (2) able to be chosen/prefered (3) a behavior. > Most people in Japan, the United States, and Europe view the assassination of Shinzo Abe to be a "morally bad" Most people are incoherent. What's your point? Did Shinzo directly hurt anyone? Simple test. He probably *advocated* for people to be hurt, as most politicians do (the cops do the actual dirty bloody work), so technically he's probably innocent, but meh, practically speaking, who would defend such a shithead if misfortune befell him. > If it was truly the case that it is "universally preferable" You fucking retard, I already explained what "preferable" means here. What the fuck is wrong with you? http://dennisn.mooo.com/m...ory.php?sid=7359 > why are there hundreds of millions people who applaud the assassination and celebrate the assassin as a hero? Most people are amoral/immoral opportunistic apes. They CHOOSE to be that. Ask any of them, from either side, if enslaving people is good or bad, or if theft is good or bad, or if killing INNOCENT people is good or bad (like vaporizing/nuking Hiroshima, or fire bombing Tokyo and Dresden). > That's literally what they've done all throughout modern history [fought over THE LAST BITS OF AIR, LAND, WATER] Lie. False. You're dumb and dishonest. Most of the planet was uninhabitted just a hundred years ago. > there would be no competition at all because everyone would avoid it. False. You are dumb, Duning. Boys for example turn everything into a competition just for the fuck of it. Clearly your parents kept you in a shelterd cave all your life. > One of the most fundamental principles of geopolitics There is no such thing as gEoPoLitIcS Duning. You are so dumb. Seriously, go outside some time. > selfish players Everyone is "selfish". Meaningless empty sentences. > countries "countries" aren't things. There is no "USA". There is ... Lockhead Martin, and covert gangs like the CIA, and old money like the Rothchilds, etc. > will compete against each other for scarce resources That's not why people fight. They fight to preserve their (ill gotten) wealth, for power and control, to preserve that. Cornering and monopolizing natural resource markets (as you Georgists also want to do) is just one of several methods faggots use to get this control, but it's not for the actual resources themselves. USA didn't attack Iraq "for the scarce oil", as was often claimed at the time. They attacked Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia after years of deliberation, almost certainly at the behest of (((Israelis))). Nobody was running out of scarce oil. > And there are no permanent friends, only temporary allies You are sad :P. I have permanent friends. Try growing a spine, and some principles. > The world population is increasing by several tens of millions of humans every year. Almost every population's fertility is currently below replacement levels (2.1). Sub-Saharan Africa's will be too, apparently, soon. Because homo sapiens aren't rabbits or deers. We have "brains", you fucking retard. To assume that we'd over-breed like rabbits is soooooo fucking retarded, you're embarrassing. But most importantly, dishonest. Like when I asked you if YOU're that YOU'd overbreed, and you said "oh yea definitely i'd have 500+ kids", you fucking dishonest turd :P. Waste of time to talk to you. > Only a fool would say that there's no way this continuing trend Hahahahahaa. So you didn't even know that the trend has already reversed. DUNING. KRUGER. But bruh, for sure, you and your ilk (Ehrlich) should definitely be in charge of shit! > Unlimited population growth is unsustainable HAaaahahahahaahah. Thanks for this super important info bro. Let me write this down! What we all do without your wisdom. > and that's what we're heading towards. AAaahahahaha. *Googles...* Japan's fertility rate is 1.3. US's is 1.6. China's is 1.7. AAAhahahaha. > all it will take is another major crisis or two to make the world's food/resource supplies trip up and unable to keep up. Fear mongering whore :P. In reality, if you ever went outside, you'd see that food security and all-around well-being is now more secure than ever before. You never hear about famines these days - but you would have a few decades ago. > Then you'll catch a glimpse of how biological systems have *always* work. We get it. You're miserable, and you really want to see the world burn, all cuz you're too pussy to confront your evil violent parents. Smh. We all have to suffer, cuz you can't deal with the real evil-doers in your real life. Loool. Sad. > have children that you cannot feed, even if that turns out to be the most successful (and selfish) reproductive strategy. Who tf says that's the most successful strategy? Also selfish doesn't necessarily equal hurting other people - that was my point. The term "selfishness" is meaningless/tautology/neutral. Commies love to conflate the two though, to trick (shame) people into sacrificing themselves. > You also deem many so-called "immoral" behaviors to be "universally wrong" Ffs, morality IS univeral wrongs/rights you dense dishonest faggot. It's amazing that after all these months we can't even agree on the word, you don't even understand the secular-ancap argument, yet you write on and on and on ... about what exactly?!? Your faggot strawmen :|. Soooo sad. > it seems that you care about what the greatest number of people would consider to be moral or immoral Holy fuck man you're so pathetic :|. Your entire worldview is literally made of straw, no joke. No - morality is not a popularity contest - it's a lot closer to science, or math actually. Logic isn't determined by vote. No NAP-violating rule can be universalized. That's a logical statement. It's truthfulness or falsehood is not determined by majority vote. > you should pay your taxes Dishonest faggot :P. Call things by their proper name ... you think I should be violently forced to pay for things I don't want, against my will, at gunpoint. Why don't you ever do that? Why do you always hide behind that pathetic obvious euphemistic word "taxes"? Dishonest piece of shit. You're a good slave-boy though. Too bad Big Brother isn't paying you anything for being his little bitch. Pathetic. But this does demonstrate how YOU are the state. Fags like you, an overwhelming swarm of mosquitos ... YOU all are the real state. Without your tacit support for all this evil shit, it wouldn't exist. All your millions of proboscises are a force to be reckoned with. I could swat you easily, and all your gay friends - but I can't swat the whole swarm of you pests. Sigh. > The vast majority of people consider taxation to be ... morally right No they don't retard. That's why they hide behind the euphemism, they PAIN STAKINGLY avoid explicitly saying what it really is (except for a few sociopathic autists), and they get soooo triggered when you try to get them to do that - ie. guilty consciences under intense tension to hide that uncomfortable truth. Again, try going outside some time and talking to people. You would have known this by now if you had ever tried this. > you should be in favor of taxation [aka. violent theft] [assuming you care about the majority will] Haaaaaahahahaha. Holy fuck you're pathetic. But yea, obviously this is how YOU think. You're projecting, as always. > "moral" [means] according to most people's brains and mirror neurons I'll leave you two alone, you with your straw man. Faggots :D > > "Modern moral theory says you aren't obligated to help him." > Modern Liberals disagree with you. Who the fuck are you quoting? I never said that. > Who's to say that your beliefs are more correct than theirs, besides yourself? Who's to say that the square of a hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of it's two sides? > nothing is objectively immoral. Waste of time. Dude, stop wasting my time, please. You're clearly not present in the conversation, you aren't being honest. What are you doing? You don't think it's objectively immoral to gouge out toddler's eyeballs? Really? What about your parents - is it objectively immoral to kill them? Remember when you said "if you ever lay a finger on my family or children, I will kill you and chop your balls off. I mean it!!!" http://dennisn.mooo.com/m...ory.php?sid=7187 That sure sounds like you think that it's objectively universally immoral to hurt your children. You incoherent fuck. Waste. Of. Life. You zero. > The Industrial Revolution was powered by fossil fuels, which fundamentally changed the Earth, caused tons of pollution .... and pulled countless people out of poverty and improved most people's lives. > and lead to the sixth largest mass extinction event in the Earth's history HAahahahaha. I'm pretty sure that's bullshit :D. Humans have been extincting species for a long time, before and after the industrial revolution. Species have been extincting themselves too on their own without our help too :P. But thanks for exposing the commie propaganda you read :DD. > As another example, humans have had to breed literally billions of livestock animals inside slaughterhouses in order to generate enough meat to feed the planet So? (I'm vegan btw) > and yet it still isn't enough What? Yes it is enough. What the fuck are you saying? It's more than enough, herds are regularly "culled" to stay on the safe side of pandemic outbreaks - we have that much slack/excess in our food systems. > in part because the human population won't stop growing. HAaaaaaahahahahah [continuation from earlier laughing]. You're soooooo full of shit, this is sad. > Just like a mother is being cruel/evil if she has babies that she cannot feed I'm guessing you're quoting Blithering here? I have no idea what you're doing. Nevertheless, when you said you'd have 500+ kids, were you assuming you'd be able to feed them all? "Oh the web of lies we weave" > If there's a famine and civilization collapses, the most reasonable ... bla bla bla "Edge cases make terrible law." Clown. You don't make laws for life-boat scenarios. But it's very telling that this is where your mind is at - at the brink of annihilation. Seriously dude, confront your parents, this isn't healthy. > You don't seem to understand biology or evolutionary theory very well... Okay Duning :D. And neither does phd JFG. And phd Dawkins. We should all listen to you loser degree-less bums :D. (I don't consider Blithering's computer degree anything, nor your bachelors.)
|
