Controversial General Political Discussion

[NAMELESS]

Talking to yourself?

There are many exceptions to ethical sentences like "killing is wrong"

Killing isn't bad. Murder is. You literally need to kill plants and animals to survive(cry vegans,you are killers too).

 

[Indigo]

What if he can see God tho?

let's think about it, this is interesting

if he sees god, and i don't

which one defines reality and illusion?

considering the way humanity works, the majority or those in the side who have power will define reality

like Doflamingo put it, the winners decide history and reality in this case lmao

so it ends up not being objective, once again

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Talking to yourself?

There are many exceptions to ethical sentences like "killing is wrong"

that is not the point... I recommend the routledge introduction to the contemporary discussions on ethics. You can find in Libgen

 

[NAMELESS]

So by objective morality you just mean its an objective fact that morality as a concept in humans exists?

Yes and we are meant to abide by it. Objective=factual. Just because animals and plants don't discern morals,it doesn't mean people shouldn't. Its literally ingrained in you genes to be a social creature. If you behave in anti-social ways,you reap what you sow.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

the majority or those in the side who have power will define reality

No
Reality exists outside of human perception. Eg ultrasound exists even tho humans can't hear it

 

[Mathias]

Well, you are talking with a pragmatist here. I consider social interactions as the central locus to explain epistemology, morality, normativity. But agreement/disagreement disctinction doesnt even touch in the moral objectivity (moral realism) problem

I wish I could discuss Peirce with you but my brain did that with him

 

[NAMELESS]

Let me get this straight.

So just because I don't base my moral values on such ethereal concepts like gods or some sort of higher power that makes me schizophrenic and detached from reality?

Did you read logiko's quote?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Did you read logiko's quote?

Can you see God?

 

[NAMELESS]

@Toby D. Dog i quotted you by accident,sorry. That was meant for logiko.

Post automatically merged: Jun 19, 2024

Can you see God?

I can read his words and so can you.

Post automatically merged: Jun 19, 2024

No
Reality exists outside of human perception. Eg ultrasound exists even tho humans can't hear it

Shit,i was talking aobut this 5 min ago and you were tolling me.

 

[Etzel Andergast]

I wish I could discuss Peirce with you but my brain did that with him

there is a lot of contemporary pragmatists that you could discuss like Richard Rorty, Jurgen Habermas and Robert Brandom

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Shit,i was talking aobut this 5 min ago and you were tolling me.

What? You did? Can you quote your post again?

I can read his words and so can you.

Where is the proof that the Bible are God's word?

 

[Indigo]

No
Reality exists outside of human perception. Eg ultrasound exists even tho humans can't hear it

except we now can prove that ultrasound exists, and now we can tell it's objective 100%

but before, when it couldn't be defined and proved, to humans saying that shit would be delusion

once there was proof, and the majority agreed with it, in our brains it became reality

i understand what you mean, if you remove humans from the discussion, ultrassound is there 100%

but if humans are there, the talk about reality among them is defined by what the majority believes or those in power that make it so

you see where i'm coming from?

let's say god exists, and he gave us the 10 Ten Commandments, and they are objectively moral like NAMELESS says

right now, because there's absolutely no way to prove his existence or not, either way, we can't be 100% sure that morality is objective, because we can't confirm it

however, in the future, if we find a way to prove it OR the grand majority or those in power simply make it the truth, it can be seen as the objective morality from the perspective of the humans

 

[Uncle Van]

Yes and we are meant to abide by it. Objective=factual. Just because animals and plants don't discern morals,it doesn't mean people shouldn't. Its literally ingrained in you genes to be a social creature. If you behave in anti-social ways,you reap what you sow.

Morality as a concept is completely factual. What constitutes being morally good, neutral or wrong is very subjective.

 

[Logiko]

social pressure is still a kind of social interaction

Technically... yeah. Granted

That is why your takes are schizophrenic, you are detached from reality.

And yet, I make better choices than you politically



This is the difference between you saying "X is wrong" and me saying "We can't do X because Y". My reasonning is based on logic, not yours.

 

[NAMELESS]

For some reason you went from talking about morality to reality. As if there were in any way linked.

So it isn't part of reality that all fucking humans ever in existence had their codes to make their communities survive. Are we not part of reality?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

except we now can prove that ultrasound exists, and now we can tell it's objective 100%

but before, when it couldn't be defined and proved, to humans saying that shit would be delusion

once there was proof, and the majority agreed with it, in our brains it became reality

i understand what you mean, if you remove humans from the discussion, ultrassound is there 100%

but if humans are there, the talk about reality among them is defined by what the majority believes or those in power that make it so

you see where i'm coming from?

let's say god exists, and he gave us the 10 Ten Commandments, and they are objectively moral like NAMELESS says

right now, because there's absolutely no way to prove his existence or not, either way, we can't be 100% sure that morality is objective, because we can't confirm it

however, in the future, if we find a way to prove it OR the grand majority or those in power simply make it the truth, it can be seen as the objective morality from the perspective of the humans

Too anthropocentric
We're one of many animals. we're not that special

 

[AL sama]

I'm talking about moral realism that means ethical sentences like "kill is wrong" express propositions (this means that these sentences can be true or false) that refers in some level to objective features of the world

I get your point but did you understand what I meant??

killing is considered wrong but in some cases its also right

so there's no objective morality

 

[NAMELESS]

Morality as a concept is completely factual. What constitutes being morally good, neutral or wrong is very subjective.

Ok, agreed. Good luck creating your own morals though.

 

[Indigo]

Too anthropocentric
We're one of many animals. we're not that special

we're discussing the technicalities of words we defined as humans lmao

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

So it isn't part of reality that all fucking humans ever in existence had their codes to make their communities survive. Are we not part of reality?

What happened to those humans who died before the Bible was written? Are they in hell now?