Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 2. (Read 17785 times)

Morality is just the question of what is right and what is wrong.

Just because your religion spells it out for you, does not mean that those that do not have such structure cannot tell what is right and what is wrong.

If you don't have any type of god or ultimate being morality is very subjective

We believe because we can't otherwise.

The long wording is very confusing "...majority group to designate someone to hire someone...".

A few cartoon pictures would make it more interesting.

I think when people see that question they recognize the current system and vote no on principle.

OP quiz would be better with pictures.

Brain-masturbation addict here.

Actually, if it hurts you it's good - that's the purpose of pain. If we didn't feel pain we would have no way of knowing about physical danger.
Pain is an evolved mechanism of self preservation.

(This applies to empathy too - we experience other people's pain so we can run away.
Ironically this is why so many people are suffering in the world - the empathic pain we feel makes us put them out of our mind so as to avoid the pain we feel when we see them suffer.)

I will have to retake the test and lie to find the other questions. I got as far as question one. I do believe I can make a case for when it would be wise to take money from you but moral, perhaps the survey should define it first before assuming it's existence.

If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept there is no morality in math)

Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While it's a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events.

As you can see I'm unlikely to agree with many of you, that's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others.

If animals had morals they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called libertarians aren't helping.

-----------------------

edit

Ok so I've answered yes to all the questions purely to see the outcome, I guess some would judge me as immoral for lying, it was interesting to get the end and find the purpose of this was to explain that Tax is Theft

Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL

i see what u did there...

I tried establishing a premise from the very basis, in an attempt to expand on my premises and see where you or I go wrong, when I started with the basis, "If it hurts me, it's bad." You right away pointed out that there are many extraneous circumstances where what is hurting me may not be hurting me as something else, where all I was hoping for was to start from something simple, so I just figured you had no interests in exploring premises, and would just prefer to stick to your own, right or wrong.


That's what you assumed I thought. What I think is that replanting trees allows you to harvest from only one piece of land, and not rely on harvesting the existing ecosystem. My example of a company in Chile, which I mentioned just a few weeks ago, was an example of how a company did that extremely well, being able to produce the majority of the world's (or at least China's) paper requirements without relying on destroying the surrounding forests and ecosystem, developing methods of growing trees cheaper and faster than their competitors, all without environmental regulation. In the end, what they do they only do for personal profit, but the end result is that they are protecting the ecosystem, because other logging companies that might otherwise destroy other forests, don't, because they can't compete with that Chilean company.



I regurgitate them, or repeat them, because you and others don't get them. You've demonstrated that in this post as well.


I'm not interested in that audience. Preaching to the choir doesn't do anything for me.

Rassah,

You can make logically valid arguments to support anything you want as long as you start with a premise that you believe in, usually out of ignorance of a large body of work and knowledge that already exists. That's your strategy.

Example: you think replanting trees maintains an ecosystem. But it doesn't. And you have began arguments based on that false premise several times in the past year, all after I had presented to you that long post which explained these things to you. I recall having presented that post to you many months ago, and yet you conveniently ignored it and made a post about the timber industry in Chile several months ago. And I did the same thing in the past week, and you again conveniently ignored it, and again made a post about the timber industry in Chile again.

And this is how it goes with you. You regurgitate the same conclusions based on your (first uninformed position), and then later, you regurgitate the same conclusions, even though you have been subsequently informed. And then you repeat it for a third time.

This is your method of operation. And it's neither impressive, nor effective against those who know better. But it is effective for most of your audience here, who are fervent believers in these overly simplistic paradigms that are so popular here.

Did crumbs just demonstrate that all taxation is by definition violent enforcement?

You rely on charity, or you die, because the "benevolent" government that doesn't let you pass forces you to starve to death. How is that different from not being able to afford buying food, paying for transportation, and not being able to find a job now? If you can't afford to survive, you change so you can, or you rely on charity, or you force others to give you their stuff. Hopefully (most likely) you won't find yourself in a situation where you are living in a sovereign micronation, surrounded by a hostile foreign power.


Regarding bolding, I don't understand what you want me to do? I've been told that the best way to convince someone is not to tell them now it is, but to ask them questions and make them come to the conclusion themselves. They won't believe you, but they will believe themselves. So, I ask many questions; not because I am stupid and don't know the answer, but because I want you to check and verify your own premises and see if your own conclusions make sense. Would you find it less frustrating and more convincing if I simply told you how things work and the way they are?

By the way, the reason you can't convince me is because you are desperately trying to convince me using feelings and concerns about society and my fellow man, while I prefer arguments based on logic, which admittedly has to many holes in it. We may just be of too different personality types to ever get anywhere.

Starting with your last sentence, what you are calling "a paradox" is otherwise known as "self-contradiction."  A self-contradictory statement is the very essence of "wrong" in any formal logic.  A formal system is *proven* to be junk if it can produce a well-formed statement that leads to a contradiction. See HERE.  For God's sake, don't start out with a self-contradictory statement & build on it -- that's the very definition of insanity, or, if you are quite aware of what you're doing, absurdism, but i do not think that's what you're shooting for.

Rassah,

Regarding working: what if you can't make money online, or can't afford to pay to have your food delivered?

Regarding your argumentation: it has been discussed that you're arguing methods are some combination of stupidity and trollishness, but never effective. The reason I or others cannot convince you is because you don't wish to build upon the information that flows in the dialog. Your posts fail to acknowledge past points or information and are even oftentimes contradictory to past posts you've made.

I have thought of that. If I was in such a situation, would have to pay for access (in which case I am paying for something, even if I'm being ripped off, and I'm doing it voluntarily), OR I would pay someone else to deliver food for me. I could also work remotely online, like I do some of my work now. If you were in that came situation, would you just give up and die, not being able to think of ways to solve your problem? Is this why you are so afraid if losing government?




If I'm just ineffective at arguing and prone to persuasion, and you have been arguing with me for over a year, then what does it say about you?   And sure, I might have a lack of understanding about certain world topics, like biology and nature, but it's pretty evident to me that you also lack real world knowledge of other topics, like business, economics, and global trade.

Here's a link to a discussion I had just 4 years ago, where I was an adamant supporter of monetary policy, and was arguing against deflation and gold standard http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/10-banks-allowed-to-repay-tarp-bailout-money/#comment-21320688

nonviolent enforcement. sure i can try to define it i dont know how well ill do. i think the example illustrates the concept better than my attempt to define it ever could but ill give it whirl since you are so insistent. so its something like: using non violent means to craft incentives that make it in the interest of a person to obey a rule. but please lets not dwell on the technicalities of this definition that you could probably find some flaw in. lets focus on the example. the example is much more illustrative of the point im trying to make than any definition ever will be.

mother says "if you are a good boy she will take you to Disney world this summer" mother sets a rule, dont break glass bottles in the house. she threatens that if you disobey the rule than she will not consider you to have been a good boy and so you will not be taking a trip to Disney world this summer. you sincerely wish for her to take you to Disney world so this threat has weight. this threat enforces the rule. the threat is inherently non violent because choosing not to take someone to disney world is not an act of violence.

if you would like to suggest a better way of describing what i am outlining here than nonviolent enforcement than i would definitely be open to that. its the concept thats important not the label. admittedly it is a bad label because google defines enforce as

Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).
Cause (something) to happen by necessity or force.

which makes the term its self "nonviolent enforcement" a paradox.

Oh lawd.  Comparing him to us is so ... eww?  Anthropomorphism is just wrong.

Rassah claimed to hold essentially the views we do, but said he was unable to win any arguments regarding those views, so came around to embracing the views he has now. Sounds to me like he was just ineffective at arguing and prone to persuasion. Factor in the general lack of real world knowledge regarding complex subjects he brings to the table...