There is no evil...?

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

These animals are evil by their very nature. The exact same type of argument that religions have used to justify murder and mistreatment of homosexuals and anyone else they generally didn't like.

This seems an inaccurate conclusion to draw from Stephen's statements. Though it does seem that your latter statement in this quoted set is talking about the Good, in that "murder and mistreatment" are Evil?

You're right, now it's deterministic, the same way that I can calculate what is going to happen if a 1 kg object travelling at 1M/s hit's a stationary 1kg object at an angle of 30 degrees. Or how can assume that you and everyone else will always prefer behaviours that provide positive outcomes based on what they deem to be positive.

I don't see why anything that isn't random must be deterministic?

 

[Mediochre]

Praying mantis males exhibit behavior that clearly fits the definition of concerns beyond self and is literally offering self-sacrifice. It may be uncomfortable in a "human context". But in terms of taking care of the species, being a source of very high protein at a time when the female needs it the most for producing offspring

Yes, the praying mantis exibits those behaviours because the praying mantis values those things. Specifically that particular male mantis values them as evidenced by it's choice to allow itself to be eaten. Which by definition is still self interest. If the male didn't care, it would fight back or run or do something to try not to get eaten. The male could just go "fuck you, I have my own life I wanna live, have fun with that protein deficiency"

Here's two questions for you that determines the validity of the entire argument for good and evil:

If a male mantis runs away and strands the female is he evil?

If a male mantis tries to run and the female chases him down and eats him is she evil?

 

[Mediochre]

This seems an inaccurate conclusion to draw from Stephen's statements. Though it does seem that your latter statement in this quoted set is talking about the Good, in that "murder and mistreatment" are Evil?

Because there are many contradicting behavioural sets and beliefs in the world and when you attempt to apply one universally as "good" you are by definition saying that everything that is not that way must be not-good. I.e, evil. This fallacy comes about from presuming that there is intrinsic value in, well, anything. In Stephens mantis exampe it's the presumtion that there is intrinsic value in the survival of the mantis species.

Murder and mistreatment are not objectively evil in the homosexual/church example... which is the point and why morality is self contradictory. The church saw it as good whereas the victims likely saw it as evil. Both can't be objectively true. But they can be subjectively true. Which means there cannot be objective morality there can only be individual likes and dislikes.

I don't see why anything that isn't random must be deterministic?

Arouet has been covering that one with the "are there libertarian free choices" proof. Stephens examples in that post all had "previous inputs" that affected the choices of the people involved. In other words without that information those choices would not have been made, thus the presence of information determined the choices that were made. It's simple operant conditioning.

I value freedom of choice a lot but I still recognize that my choices are just a product of the lens I view the world through, a lens created by my experiences. My lens in effect determines my choices.

 

[LetsEat]

Yes, the praying mantis exibits those behaviours because the praying mantis values those things. Specifically that particular male mantis values them as evidenced by it's choice to allow itself to be eaten. Which by definition is still self interest. If the male didn't care, it would fight back or run or do something to try not to get eaten. The male could just go "fuck you, I have my own life I wanna live, have fun with that protein deficiency"

Here's two questions for you that determines the validity of the entire argument for good and evil:

If a male mantis runs away and strands the female is he evil?

If a male mantis tries to run and the female chases him down and eats him is she evil?

How do you define self interest? Is there any behavior that you would consider to not be self interest?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Because there are many contradicting behavioural sets and beliefs in the world and when you attempt to apply one universally as "good" you are by definition saying that everything that is not that way must be not-good. I.e, evil. This fallacy comes about from presuming that there is intrinsic value in, well, anything. In Stephens mantis exampe it's the presumtion that there is intrinsic value in the survival of the mantis species.

Sorry, what is the exact logical fallacy in "presuming that there is intrinsic value in, well, anything"?

Both can't be objectively true. But they can be subjectively true. Which means there cannot be objective morality there can only be individual likes and dislikes.

Or only one is objectively correct.

Arouet has been covering that one with the "are there libertarian free choices" proof.

What in the proof convinced you that things must be deterministic or random?

In other words without that information those choices would not have been made, thus the presence of information determined the choices that were made. It's simple operant conditioning.

There's a difference between "determined" and "fully accounts for". I believe Stephen was speaking to this difference.

I value freedom of choice a lot but I still recognize that my choices are just a product of the lens I view the world through, a lens created by my experiences. My lens in effect determines my choices.

So it doesn't matter if others take away your freedoms, since they can simply say they have no choice in the matter?

 

[Mediochre]

How do you define self interest? Is there any behavior that you would consider to not be self interest?

Behaviour exhibited under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs or similar is not in self interest. Basically, any behaviour taken by the persons body while the person themelves is "not there." Other examples would be dissociative identity disorder where another identity takes over and the first identity is unaware of the actions being taken or is unable to do anything about the actions as they are happening.

EDIT: So the real question from this is, "is there even a self to begin with?"

 

[Mediochre]

Or only one is objectively correct.

True, but that gets into very muddy waters as far as persecution is concerned.

What in the proof convinced you that things must be deterministic or random?

Because there were no other logical possibilities. If it's random it's not your choice. I would almost argue it's not even a choice in the first place. If your choice is based on data then the data is determining your choice for without it your choice would be different. What's the alternative?

There's a difference between "determined" and "fully accounts for". I believe Stephen was speaking to this difference.

Yeah I get that, but it doesn't really change anything. If the prescence or absence of data changes the outcome then the outcome can be said to be determined by the prescence or abscence of that data. The only question after that is how big the change is.

So it doesn't matter if others take away your freedoms, since they can simply say they have no choice in the matter?

Technically yes as ridiculous as it sounds. But by the same token they can't complain if I fight them on it if that's what they really believe. This comes down to the objective vs subjective thing where objectively, yeah you could argue that they had no choice but subjectively they're just being controlling dicks because that's how it would make me feel.

I will admit I make one conscious hypocritical descicion which is recognizing that things are technically determined but then deciding that they're not because I'd rather be free. Then working towards making that a reality as best that I can regardless of whether it's even possible or not. Actually I'm not sure if that's even hypocritical but whatever, it's what I do.

 

[Mediochre]

I have a concept in martial arts about "the false dichotomy of attacker and defender."

At lower levels you are taught methods that guarantee that the attacker always loses. But at higher levels you learn how to defeat those techniques and thus become a successful attacker yourself in your defense.

Although you are taught methods of defending yourself from attackers, you too must become an attacker yourself in your defense. Thus it would be hypocritical to believe that your attacker is evil for you commit the same evil. It is one thing to recognize why they attacked you but it is another to condemn them for it.
For to condemn them would be a condemnation of yourself. You and them are the same. When people start to understand this it does some pretty crazy things to their skill as it removes hatred, fear, anger, sadness and the like from their mind since they have realized that it is unneccessary and false. Focusing them instead on the task at hand.

 

[LetsEat]

Behaviour exhibited under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs or similar is not in self interest. Basically, any behaviour taken by the persons body while the person themelves is "not there." Other examples would be dissociative identity disorder where another identity takes over and the first identity is unaware of the actions being taken or is unable to do anything about the actions as they are happening.

EDIT: So the real question from this is, "is there even a self to begin with?"

You seem to have forgotten to define self interest.

 

[Mediochre]

You seem to have forgotten to define self interest.

Sorry, Self interest is defined as "what you want"

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

True, but that gets into very muddy waters as far as persecution is concerned.

Can you elaborate? I don't know what these "muddy waters" are.

Because there were no other logical possibilities.

If the logical conclusion is that all events are either determined or random there should be a proof correct?

Yeah I get that, but it doesn't really change anything. If the prescence or absence of data changes the outcome then the outcome can be said to be determined by the prescence or abscence of that data. The only question after that is how big the change is.

Well if one accepts that things must be random or determined, that would follow. But Stephen is clearly not buying that assertion. I too would like to see a proof of that dichotomy.

Technically yes as ridiculous as it sounds. But by the same token they can't complain if I fight them on it if that's what they really believe. This comes down to the objective vs subjective thing where objectively, yeah you could argue that they had no choice but subjectively they're just being controlling dicks because that's how it would make me feel.

So "controlling dicks" is a moral bad thing to be?

 

[Mediochre]

Can you elaborate? I don't know what these "muddy waters" are.

Let's imagine a hypothetical universe where the world will implode or end or whatever if some group is not killed or tortured or mistreated in some way. people are determined to be or not be members of this group by their birth. It's not genetic so it can strike anyone, anywhere, regardless of social status and all that.

So objectively, if these people are not kept down somehow the world will end, but to the members of the oppressed group the oppression might make them feel like they don't really care if the world ends since their life in it is wholly terrible anyways. Now there's an extra value judgement. Objectively the world will end if this group is not oppressed but subjectively there's some people who may not care. And these people may not necessarily all be in the oppressed group, there may be others who feel that it's entirely unfair that this group needs to be oppressed.

Now there's a clash between which is more important to people in this world, physical survival, or enjoyment of life and freedom.

By the same token Stephens cardinal error in his mantis explanation was to posit that survival of the mantis species was objectively good. He did this by comparing the physical sacrifice of male manti for female manti's protein needs which keeps the species going to "love" which according to his argument equals "good" because lack of love is evil. Because yes, if male manti start not letting themselves get eaten the mantis species would probably go extinct. Which then puts a claim of intrinsic value on the existence of the mantis species.

But should the male manti care? Which is why I posited my two questions to Stephen about a hypothetical situation where the male mantis tries to run and either he gets away or the female catches and eats him and to get Stephen or anyone else who believes in objective morality to answer which side is evil or not?

It's always the nail in the coffin question template for objective morality because your only two choices are either a double standard where one side is allowed to fulfil their desires but if the other side fulfils their desires, well, they're just evil. Or to admit that objective morality doesn't exist.

Choosing one side but not the other as evil is the same base logic that has fuelled the worst things in history, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, rape jihadis and the like. Because it's about protecting the group, the ideology, as opposed to the individuals that make it up. If someone steps out of line and does something "un-mantis like" Such as a male who doesn't want to commit suicide for their female, or a female who doesn't want to eat their male, well they're the problem. The good thing to do is whatever you need to do get them back to the flock or get rid of them if you can't. If it's someone outside of your group, well, your group is the best group, it's the right group, everyone should want to be in your group. People who aren't in your group just aren't the same as the people in your group.

Because hey, rape and murder only applies between humans, and that non-muslim white-skinned German girl walking alone down the street clearly doesn't fit that definition right?

Or you're forced to admit that evil doesn't exist and the situation is just a situation. You might think "Well what if they say that both sides are evil?" well then neither is evil because now there's no difference to compare. I could've just as easily aid both are good and it changes nothing. If a moralist even answers this question, which they often don't probably because it destroys their objective morality worldview, It's not uncommon for them to try desperately deflecting by going "yeah but those are animals... they're not the same as humans." so I just rewrite the question as two starving people fighting over food or something and ask again. sometimes they attempt to use a threshold argument where they say that the person who has less is morally just in fighting and winning. So I switch the situation again to a starving man attacking a not starving man to steal their food. Over and over and over again. Until eventually the moralist gets angry and storms off and/or understands that there is no objective morality. Just personal opinions.

If the logical conclusion is that all events are either determined or random there should be a proof correct?

Wasn't his thing the proof? I suppose the thing that would need a proof is the randomness but the previous inputs one appears to be built right in there.

Well if one accepts that things must be random or determined, that would follow. But Stephen is clearly not buying that assertion. I too would like to see a proof of that dichotomy.

I don't accept that things are random or determined either but that's not how reality works. If it was I could just say that I don't buy that I am not a millionaire and then suddenly it would turn out I was a millionaire all along. But that's not what happens. I much, much prefer the idea of complete free will but I have yet to demonstrate that it even exists. Until I do it would be intellectually dishonest to believe in it. However I do admit that it may be a definitional issue but I haven't solved that either. For now the best I can do is the saying "freedom is doing what you can with what has been done to you."

So "controlling dicks" is a moral bad thing to be?

Depends who you ask, what I might refer to as a "controlling dick" another person might think of as an "ambitious go-getter." Ultimately I can only speak for myself and how I see things. I have things that I like and dislike but I also understand that my likes and dislikes are not universal truths that everyone else needs to adopt. Moralists, typically, don't see or perhaps understand this distinction. Which is why you see them trying to censor everything they don't like or otherwise control other peoples lives. Whereas everyone else just goes "if you don't like it then don't look at it."

You might think that I sound very much like I'm trying to convince people about how morality doesn't exist. And yes, I'd love it if more people understood that it doesn't exist, but I'm not going to do anything to anyone if they don't just believe me.

I think with this post, I rest my case.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Choosing one side but not the other as evil is the same base logic that has fuelled the worst things in history, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, rape jihadis and the like.

Isn't "worst" being used here in a moral sense?

It's not uncommon for them to try desperately deflecting by going "yeah but those are animals... they're not the same as humans." so I just rewrite the question as two starving people fighting over food or something and ask again. sometimes they attempt to use a threshold argument where they say that the person who has less is morally just in fighting and winning. So I switch the situation again to a starving man attacking a not starving man to steal their food. Over and over and over again. Until eventually the moralist gets angry and storms off and/or understands that there is no objective morality. Just personal opinions.

This doesn't seem to disprove objective morality, only make moral questions contextual?

Wasn't his thing the proof? I suppose the thing that would need a proof is the randomness but the previous inputs one appears to be built right in there.

Could you quote the line? I'm not seeing anything in Arouet's posts approaching a proof of a randomness/deterministic dichotomy for all causal chains.

Maybe I missed it?

I don't accept that things are random or determined either but that's not how reality works.

I think we're waiting for a proof of this randomness/deterministic dichotomy being how reality works?

Depends who you ask, what I might refer to as a "controlling dick" another person might think of as an "ambitious go-getter." Ultimately I can only speak for myself and how I see things. I have things that I like and dislike but I also understand that my likes and dislikes are not universal truths that everyone else needs to adopt. Moralists, typically, don't see or perhaps understand this distinction. Which is why you see them trying to censor everything they don't like or otherwise control other peoples lives. Whereas everyone else just goes "if you don't like it then don't look at it."

So censorship is morally wrong?

You might think that I sound very much like I'm trying to convince people about how morality doesn't exist. And yes, I'd love it if more people understood that it doesn't exist, but I'm not going to do anything to anyone if they don't just believe me.

Why would you love it?

 

[Mediochre]

This doesn't seem to disprove objective morality, only make moral questions contextual?

I know you're attempting to get me to say "yes, I think X is bad" throughout your entire reply as if me believing something is bad somehow proves objective morality exists even though I already covered why it doesn't but that one word is all I need to highlight in my defense. Personally what I see in your response is disengenuity. I already covered why someone saying something is good or bad is merely their personal opinion in detail. So you asking me more questions about whether I think something is good or bad or moral or immoral is completely pointless. Given that you didn't quote any of those points in this reply to me tells me that you either didn't even read my comment, or ignored it's contents entirely because they were inconvenient because if you understand what I said about personal opinion then why are you continuing to ask me questions about my likes and dislikes as if they mean anything?

Thank you for demonstrating that my case has indeed rested.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I know you're attempting to get me to say "yes, I think X is bad" throughout your entire reply as if me believing something is bad somehow proves objective morality exists even though I already covered why it doesn't but that one word is all I need to highlight in my defense. Personally what I see in your response is disengenuity. I already covered why someone saying something is good or bad is merely their personal opinion in detail. So you asking me more questions about whether I think something is good or bad or moral or immoral is completely pointless. Given that you didn't quote any of those points in this reply to me tells me that you either didn't even read my comment, or ignored it's contents entirely because they were inconvenient because if you understand what I said about personal opinion then why are you continuing to ask me questions about my likes and dislikes as if they mean anything?

Thank you for demonstrating that my case has indeed rested.

You keep saying it's just your likes and dislikes, but you also make comments that suggest a universal reference frame of what's good and bad. To me it's not very convincing when you claim that it's just your opinion, but then go on to speak critically of "moralists" using normative terms. Surely you can see why I would find your posts, considered in total, disingenuous?

Still waiting on that proof that everything is either random or determined.

 

[Mediochre]

Still waiting on that proof that everything is either random or determined.

Matrix math can easily account for all possibilities by generating a matrix of unlimited axes of mathematical curves for every possible state of everything ever. Which neatly accounts for the free will argument of multiple paths. I know someone might think they have a perception argument in that they don't percieve that they are just flowing down the matrix but I can easily point out the sheer amount of data in the universe they already don't percieve so why would this be any different?

but then go on to speak critically of "moralists" using normative terms. Surely you can see why I would find your posts, considered in total, disingenuous?

So basically instead of focusing on the points of my argument you're just going to focus on my tone? Yeah sorry you're the disengenuos one here by a wide margin. I didn't even bat an eye when Stephen referred to me as "vapid" as I continued dissecting his arguments but apparently I can't get that same courtesy.

Tone policing is the tactic of someone who has no argument but doesn't want to admit it. You've ignored the points of my argument twice in a row now and that's my cue to not waste my time here anymore.

Merry discussions to all and to all a good day.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Matrix math can easily account for all possibilities by generating a matrix of unlimited axes of mathematical curves for every possible state of everything ever.

Proof?

So basically instead of focusing on the points of my argument you're just going to focus on my tone?

I've said nothing about your tone.

You seem quick to take offense when people don't find you as clever as you find yourself?

 

[Stephen Wright]

Let's imagine a hypothetical universe where the world will implode or end or whatever if some group is not killed or tortured or mistreated in some way. people are determined to be or not be members of this group by their birth. It's not genetic so it can strike anyone, anywhere, regardless of social status and all that.

So objectively............................................................................

I think with this post, I rest my case.

It truly needs a rest.

You start your "argument" drawing an objective conclusion, from a imaginary and impossible example. This is the height of strawman-ism and made everything else you were trying to express sound illogical.

My arguments are from a pragmatic view. They do not address ethics directly, but address objective meaning as real-world probabilities. Again, I apologize for expressing ideas that you do not understand.

 

[Mediochre]

You start your "argument" drawing an objective conclusion, from a imaginary and impossible example.

Hypothetical examples utilize pure math and are as a result as objective as objective can get since you can guarantee that you have ll of the data since it's a scenario that you designed yourself. With "real" examples there is always doubt about data that is missing that could have affected the outcome.

But since that's a problem, a recent real world example then:

Proof?

There is no example I have ever managed to find that any decision I have ever made has not been either based on reasoning through an issue and weighing the pros and cons (previous inputs) or the result of a compulsion (random/previous inputs). Thus, I cannot rightfully believe that I have ever made a single choice in my life since everything was always based on something else. Mathematically if you give a computer program two choices but weight them equally then ask it to "choose" one... it can't. You either must use a random number generator which itself is just a seeded equation or you must off-balance the weightings. Nothing else will result in a choice. I call it "the plinko problem" based on the ball and peg game and it's what destroyed my belief in free will. Because here was the PERFECT free choice model and in this model no choice can possibly be made. Given a board of infinite size you can mathematically determine precisley where the ball will be on any particular layer based on the force you push it either left or right. All I did was expand the same basic problem infinitely along infinite axes with a litle calculus thrown in and it auto generates literally every mathematical possibility ever. Reducing everything to their mathematical "seed" interacting with a "seeded" environment that itself seeded the thing who is itself part of the environment. I have not found a mathematical way out of this problem and until I do I will continue to acknowledge it's existence.

You seem quick to take offense when people don't find you as clever as you find yourself?

I do not respect when people hide behind non-aggressive language and attempt to use that as an argument against me. You did this by asking pointless questions about my likes and dislikes and then acted as if that meant anything in your second post. As if I somehow must become inert and uncaring if I am to hold the belief that morality doesn't objectively exist. At least that is how it came across as I have had this same debate many a time with many a person and am not interested in going through the same back and forth that always occurs. So I just threw in results I've gotten from previous arguments to cut to the chase.

I outright do not respect those who wholeheartedly believe in morality or any belief that in any way intrinsically elevates themselves above anything else in their own mind. I have many reasons why that I will not go into here. Sufficed to say It creates a cycle that always results in what you see in the video above and worse. I will maintain my passion and opposition to such beliefs while maintaining my acknowledgement that I am no better or different on any fundamental level I will acknowledge their choices and the perceptions that led to them and even respect them for their accomplishments but I will not allow myself to become passive or submissive in the name of equality, morality or anything else. Even though such a position will inevitably cause some people to hate me.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Even in this post you throw out a lot of moral qualifiers about how moralism is bad, or that I am judging you in negative moral terms - something I didn't do. If you can't write a single post without making normative value judgments I don't see why we should assume you've proved objective morality is nonexistent.

Mathematically if you give a computer program two choices but weight them equally then ask it to "choose" one... it can't.

Computers aren't people. In any case I'm still waiting for the proof that the dichotomy of randomness/determinism describes all causal chains. Seems to me you assume it here as well, which is just begging the question.