Controversial General Political Discussion

[RyoQ]

What you can do - on the other hand and on a human scale - is try to figure out what is the best way to maximize the happiness and development of our specie. This means looking at ethics and not religious morals.

Bullshit. There are many things humans can do to maximize happiness but are immoral anyways.

There is no good or bad in the material reality of our world, those are human and social concepts. There is only ethics. Meaning what can be seens as ethical or non ethical.

Good and evil precede human concept, you materialist. Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 5:28 AM

Apparently I'm pro-incest now

You're pro-incest between consenting adults that have not resulted in unhealthy children.

 

[Akai2]

Thank you for teaching me homosexuality is an illusion my GOAT

 

[RyoQ]

I never said incest is correct you stupid bitch

No, you haven't. I'm pointing out a flaw in your sexual ethics which would necessarily make incest morally OK in some cases.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Bullshit. There are many things humans can do to maximize happiness but are immoral anyways.



Good and evil precede human concept, you materialist. Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 5:28 AM

You're pro-incest between consenting adults that have not resulted in unhealthy children.

So true I definitely support fucking your family members that totally isn't incredibly disgusting

 

[Logiko]

Bullshit. There are many things humans can do to maximize happiness but are immoral anyways.

Quote me three exemples, we will see.

Good and evil precede human concept, you materialist. Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.

Nah, good and evil do not precede human concept lol. Dinosaurs did.

Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.

They didn't need to.

Ask yourself why it's unethical to kill an innocent person and you will understand why it was accepted socially pretty much everywhere.

It has nothing to do with concept of good or evil. It's a simple question of survival.

Thank you for teaching me homosexuality is an illusion my GOAT

Did you read what followed?

 

[Akai2]

Did you read what followed?

I did. And just it was used by oppressive capitalism doesn't mean it's an illusion.

 

[RyoQ]

So true I definitely support fucking your family members that totally isn't incredibly disgusting

I'm taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If your criteria is "consensual + isn't doing any harm", we can think of some very horrifying examples that fit that criteria such as the one I gave.

 

[Akai2]

@RyoQ Not gonna lie bro, reading your posts as something being said by the laughing Saint Sommers avy is hilarious

Legit making me lol

I really need to sleep that I'm seeing things, worked 9 hours took my wife to the docs, ran errands....

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

I'm taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If your criteria is "consensual + isn't doing any harm", we can think of some very horrifying examples that fit that criteria such as the one I gave.

I think incest is fairly different from homosexuality.

 

[RyoQ]

Quote me three exemples, we will see

1.) A doctor tells a dying patient he will be OK. It maximizes happiness to the patient, but the patient is being denied the truth that he is owed

2.) Two married adults let each other have an affair. This boosts their happiness, but it violates the fidelity of their marriage and makes marriage as an institution meaningless.

3.) A small town is restless after a crime was committed. The mayor has an innocent man executed, and the town is at peace and happy again, collective happiness is maximized but an evil act was committed

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 5:46 AM

I think incest is fairly different from homosexuality.

I didn't give incest generally as an example. I gave a specific type of incest (consensual with healthy or no kids) which according to your logic, would be morally just

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

1.) A doctor tells a dying patient he will be OK. It maximizes happiness to the patient, but the patient is being denied the truth that he is owed

2.) Two married adults let each other have an affair. This boosts their happiness, but it violates the fidelity of their marriage and makes marriage as an institution meaningless.

3.) A small town is restless after a crime was committed. The mayor has an innocent man executed, and the town is at peace and happy again, collective happiness is maximized but an evil act was committed

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 5:46 AM

I didn't give incest generally as an example. I gave a specific type of incest (consensual with healthy or no kids) which according to your logic, would be morally just

Again I must ask, why do YOU think it's bad?

 

[RyoQ]

Nah, good and evil do not precede human concept lol.

"Murder became bad only when humans decided it's bad"

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

 

[RyoQ]

Again I must ask, why do YOU think it's bad?

It's fundamentally evil because it is unnatural as the relationship between direct family is that of kin, not as spouses.

This usually corresponds to the natural defects you describe, but even when it does not, it's still immoral because it's unnatural.

Symptom does not always follow the illness so to speak. You say incest is wrong because of symptoms associated with it a lot of the time (grooming, health defects etc.), I say it's wrong because of the illness itself even if such symptoms don't appear.

This is the difference between natural law ethics on sexual morals vs utilitarian one like yours. The former correctly describes what is evil, yours often gets it right but is flawed because it is short sighted and misses the fundamentals and relies on conditions or "detriment vs benefit".

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

It's fundamentally evil because it is unnatural as the relationship between direct family is that of kin, not as spouses.

Correct.
And why is homosexuality immoral?

 

[RyoQ]

Correct.
And why is homosexuality immoral?

Yes, correct.

So your criteria for what is sexually licit can't be merely "as long as it's between two consenting adults and doesn't result in physical or health harms". Does that make sense?

Basically, natural law good and evil works like this. The nature or essence of a thing determines what is good for it. The nature of a dog is to have four legs, and so it being born with 3 is a defect or imperfection for it. The nature of a lion is to be carnivorous, so if it ate grass all the time, it would be unnatural and thus bad for it. The nature of an eyeball is to see, so an eyeball that can only see what is blurry is defective and not carrying out it's end well.

the nature of the human reproductive organs is to express dimorphism in a manner that generates life. in humans, this only occurs between the opposite sex, and so same-sex sexual actions are inherently sterile, and deviate from this end very strongly, and so it is not natural.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Yes, correct.

So your criteria for what is sexually licit can't be merely "as long as it's between two consenting adults and doesn't result in physical or health harms". Does that make sense?

Basically, natural law good and evil works like this. The nature or essence of a thing determines what is good for it. The nature of a dog is to have four legs, and so it being born with 3 is a defect or imperfection for it. The nature of a lion is to be carnivorous, so if it ate grass all the time, it would be unnatural and thus bad for it. The nature of an eyeball is to see, so an eyeball that can only see what is blurry is defective and not carrying out it's end well.

the nature of the human reproductive organs is to express dimorphism in a manner that generates life. in humans, this only occurs between the opposite sex, and so same-sex sexual actions are inherently sterile, and deviate from this end very strongly, and so it is not natural.

It's not natural, but that doesn't mean it's not morally correct.
There's nothing in our genetic codes that stops us from having sex with the same gender. Sure we can get STDs if we don't prepare properly, but any gender can get that even if they have sex with the opposite gender.

 

[RyoQ]

It's not natural, but that doesn't mean it's not morally correct.
There's nothing in our genetic codes that stops us from having sex with the same gender. Sure we can get STDs if we don't prepare properly, but any gender can get that even if they have sex with the opposite gender.

But anything unnatural is not morally correct, remember our agreement on this issue about incest? Incest doesn't always have conditionally bad things happen (like grooming or health defects), but it's not natural and so it's always immoral :/

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

But anything unnatural is not morally correct, remember our agreement on this issue about incest? Incest doesn't always have conditionally bad things happen (like grooming or health defects), but it's not natural and so it's always immoral :/

Is it natural to kidnap thousands of chickens and other animals, fatten them up, and then kill them simply for us to have foods we don't need such as chicken nuggets, burgers, pizza, etc?

 

[RyoQ]

Is it natural to kidnap thousands of chickens and other animals, fatten them up, and then kill them simply for us to have foods we don't need such as chicken nuggets, burgers, pizza, etc?

remember, when I say "natural" I don't mean what we would do in a primitive setting out in the wild.

i meant natural as in, the essential aspects of a thing including what it's natural ends are. For example the nature of a pencil is that it's made of wood and lead, it's natural end is to write, to the degree it can do that is the degree that it's a quality pencil, a shittier pencil is one that can't do write well, etc.

this is called "teleology", everything in existance has its own teleology or "telos", this dictates what's good or bad for it

yes, it is natural for humans to do that to chickens. that is just an advanced way of fulfilling a natural human end to dominate animals for consumption