There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2014, 03:04 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 03:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 02:56 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Personally, I loath variability.

Asking the shop-dude what's the difference between the Hitachi HX-538 and the HX-538s and why therefore there is a $100 difference. He doesn't fucking know!

I choose to walk out of the shop. That's my variable... on/off ... ones and zeros.

I know hundreds of people who would go back to the pre-Thatcher era in a heart-beat... steady and secure job, dependable income, less freedom, less choice. Are these people on some lower plain of consciousness?

Consider
Variability does not mean complexity. It means a potential complexity, should you choose that you want it. However, variability is necessary so that people get the one choice they actually want. There is no way a non-free world can satisfy everyone, but free people can all do the one thing they really want, even if it's different for everyone.
So my argument still stands Wink

And yeah, I know a tall Chinese guy! And I know a Woman Who Is Not Like That!
Specific instances and exceptions don't always overrule a general principle. So saying them does not contribute to the debate.
(These are references to classy Stef's radio phrases to some bad arguments he gets a lot, I couldn't resist)

So not only Presuppositional but Unfalsifiable as well. Not Even Wrong

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
18-06-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 03:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... free people can all do the one thing they really want, even if it's different for everyone.
So my argument still stands Wink

And yeah, I know a tall Chinese guy!
...

Yabut, this is still all too human-centric and therefore subjective.

Also, Hau Hi is a chinaman.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 03:09 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 02:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your property 'rules' are just as arbitrary dumbass... Facepalm
No, dumbass. Property rights are the negative, zero basic state of things that needs no justification or clarification and needs no effort to uphold. In fact, effort is needed to violate property rights and this can only occur arbitrarily, never universally.

Even the civil code defines property rights as the passive obligation on everyone on Earth not to violate your relationship to some thing. It is not a relationship between you and a piece of property, it is between you and the whole universe by default, that's what negative obligation means. Also known as first principles or "natural law" in legal studies. Property rights are a special case of the principle of integrity, they are essential to maintain our integrity. Voluntary trade is the way to thrive economically while maintaining everyone's integrity.

Those are still all arbitrary constructs, they only carry as much weight as the number of people who believe in them. A world with no people in it would have no need for the concept of 'property rights', which makes them as arbitrary as morality.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-06-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Being stronger is a fact. Ideally, this fact would mean just that you have more muscle mass than me, no other meanings, no threats. But if you make this fact more important than my freedom, then you initiate force and restrict my variability - and also restrict yours! Because using force is the least creative way. Creativity only starts when force is not an option. Just like love and relationship in marriage only starts when we do not beat up our wife and children when there is some problem to solve.

Well, I would certainly agree that things would be coerced if there is always a threat of force, although if you reach some sort of stalemate, or there is a third party with a monopoly on force, that also opens things up. That's basically how a lot of society functions.

Any two people who know and trust each other operate outside of it, but if you don't know someone, it's kind of hard to trust them. Sure, it'd be nice if we could trust everyone, and I supposed this could be describing a hypothetical "perfect" world.


(17-06-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The higher path, to use abstract ideas (logic, reason, empathy, negotiation, etc) requires creativity, because they're vague and they need translating into physical facts in right order. Applying abstract ideas (such as scientific method) in a specific way (biology research) is a good thing to do. But preferring concrete things (your power) to abstract things (my freedom of doing whatever I might want) is a perversion of this natural order of variability and it is objectively recognizable as evil.

This is where I feel like you're getting more into your own opinion. I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but this is where I'd consider your meta morality to be subjective.


(17-06-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But science is not the content. It is the method. We choose the method, because it can reproduce the results consistently.

Yes, that's what I was commenting on: the method. I mean, we can make some terrifying things with science, but I was just talking about intellectual honesty. I personally find that super important.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, dumbass. Property rights are the negative, zero basic state of things that needs no justification or clarification and needs no effort to uphold. In fact, effort is needed to violate property rights and this can only occur arbitrarily, never universally.

Rights like this aren't intrinsic and don't exist in any meaningful sense unless everyone agrees they do. Arguments that we somehow just have rights are akin to arguments that we have souls. It's nonfalsifiable and meaningless outside of us giving the concept meaning in our lives.

I mean, lets say you do have inherent property rights, and someone with more force takes your stuff. What then? Your rights aren't doing anything, so they might as well not exist. Unless some other group with a monopoly on force (or at least a bigger group) that agrees you should have those rights intervenes, then your rights aren't doing crap.

Rights only matter because we say they do, which is a subjective morality system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
18-06-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 10:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 10:31 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  So.... I can't be evil? WTF?

*Pout*

There, there, there. Don't listen to the big old stupid theists, you can be just as evil as you want! Heart


Thank you. Weeee
Y'all are working way too hard at not defining evil.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
18-06-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 12:04 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 10:31 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  So.... I can't be evil? WTF?

*Pout*

You can do whatever you want to do, and we'll all sit around and subjectively judge you, calling you things like: good, evil, awesome, terrifying, pretty, crazy, pretty crazy, or witchy.


You're good to me. Thanks

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
18-06-2014, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2014 12:25 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 08:00 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 02:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, dumbass. Property rights are the negative, zero basic state of things that needs no justification or clarification and needs no effort to uphold. In fact, effort is needed to violate property rights and this can only occur arbitrarily, never universally.

Rights like this aren't intrinsic and don't exist in any meaningful sense unless everyone agrees they do. Arguments that we somehow just have rights are akin to arguments that we have souls. It's nonfalsifiable and meaningless outside of us giving the concept meaning in our lives.

I mean, lets say you do have inherent property rights, and someone with more force takes your stuff. What then? Your rights aren't doing anything, so they might as well not exist. Unless some other group with a monopoly on force (or at least a bigger group) that agrees you should have those rights intervenes, then your rights aren't doing crap.

Rights only matter because we say they do, which is a subjective morality system.
Nope, I don't think so. We don't need anybody to put a stamp of approval on our property. All they need to do is to passively refrain from taking this property without permission, which is the default state of things. If I say something is my property, it is so until someone comes to challenge that.

But how? We humans are tool-users. Our integrity is not in genes, species or body, it is in our mind. We define and mentally extend ourselves with our property and our instruments and our capital. So property literally becomes a part of us, of our integrity. Taking this property without permission is a violation of our personal integrity. We use instruments like our limbs, we build neuron synapses for each instrument that we use.
A thief is like someone who can reach into our brain and cut away a piece of our soul, so it's gone, we can't use it, but still want to. Maybe it's not a coincidence that a thief in my language literally means "evil-doer" Tongue

The capital may seem like a very impersonal property and that is true. However, the ownership of capital is a technical necessity for economical productivity and maintaining a high life standard in the whole society. Nobody but an owner can multiply the capital. In terms of economic ability, people are not worth equally. Some people are economic giants, capable of raising mountains of capital and from this mountain they take a small part and call it their salary and all the rest of the company lives off that value which would not otherwise arise. Rich non-subsidized corporations are like these organisms which are so big that whole ecosystems live on them. That's an empirical fact of economy. I personally don't like it, but I recognize it's a technical necessity of how money work, they must have this ability to concentrate on great heaps of capital, to generate massive investment and innovation. (if government isn't involved, of course)

This is what property rights do, they drive the civilization itself, the innovation, research, increase of life standard, peace, prosperity...
If property rights are violated, people will take a shit on productive work. They'll know it's not worth bothering if someone may come along and take it. Similarly, in a country that starts confiscating private property (taxing), well, rich people start to run and investors pull out or stop importing and the country goes downhill.
That's how we know people won't start rioting if there was no government. They know it's not worth it. What is better, to shave your head and go looting for petrol like Mad Max, or to keep earning money and order some new stuff from Amazon while browsing the net? That's civilization, man.

Anyway, if you aren't all enthusiastic about what I say, just say so. It took me years to learn this stuff and I'd love to find someone who's going to be so enthusiastic that he'll pass it on to others. If you're just like... 'meh... well, I must look further. Not everyone's a world problem solver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I define morality as a consistent method of making social (universal) choices
If you use the actual dictionary you will find that your definition doesn't fit.
Core to morality is a distinction between good and bad.
Doing good things is moral.
Doing bad things is immoral.

Along this construct a person must be able to recognise what is good and what is bad.
A moral nihilist has no belief in moral truths. Thus to us moral statements are nonsensical. e.g. "theft is bad" is nonsensical. It is non nonsensical because bad has no meaning. What do you mean when you claim that something is bad? Maybe you mean it is detrimental? But detrimental to who, towards what goal?
Is everyone expected to consider this bad or just the proclaimer?
If it is the proclaimer then isn't that just a personal opinion rather than a moral truth (attribute of the universe)?

In your own definition all animals that live in social constructs have moral frameworks because they make social choices. But what is not clear about your definition is what would be the distinction between moral and immoral?
does it mean that those whom don't make choices are immoral and those that do make choices are moral?

Personally, I think your definition is lacking. You don't seem to have thought this through, which is why you are getting confused with my position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
Here we see another example of Luminon so focused on a leaf, he can't see the forest.

(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Nope, I don't think so. We don't need anybody to put a stamp of approval on our property.

Except that if other's don't recognize it as 'your property', and they're in possession of sufficient force to deprive you of it, your 'property' means fuck all.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  All they need to do is to passively refrain from taking this property without permission, which is the default state of things.

Unsubstantiated presupposition.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If I say something is my property, it is so until someone comes to challenge that.

Right, so when is your objective morality going to come from subjective valuations?


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But how? We humans are tool-users. Our integrity is not in genes, species or body, it is in our mind.

Right, so do chimpanzees also have a right to personal property?


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We define and mentally extend ourselves with our property and our instruments and our capital. So property literally becomes a part of us, of our integrity. Taking this property without permission is a violation of our personal integrity. We use instruments like our limbs, we build neuron synapses for each instrument that we use.

You still have not shown how claiming ownership over anything besides yourself is somehow 'objective'.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  A thief is like someone who can reach into our brain and cut away a piece of our soul, so it's gone, we can't use it, but still want to. Maybe it's not a coincidence that a thief in my language literally means "evil-doer" Tongue

I stopped paying attention at 'soul'.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The capital may seem like a very impersonal property and that is true. However, the ownership of capital is a technical necessity for economical productivity and maintaining a high life standard in the whole society.

Just because you declare it to be a 'technical necessity', that's doesn't elevate it beyond subjective valuation.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Nobody but an owner can multiply the capital. In terms of economic ability, people are not worth equally. Some people are economic giants, capable of raising mountains of capital and from this mountain they take a small part and call it their salary and all the rest of the company lives off that value which would not otherwise arise.

Small? LOL!


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Rich non-subsidized corporations are like these organisms which are so big that whole ecosystems live on them. That's an empirical fact of economy. I personally don't like it, but I recognize it's a technical necessity of how money work, they must have this ability to concentrate on great heaps of capital, to generate massive investment and innovation. (if government isn't involved, of course)

So you lack the imagination to envision other possible economic systems, therefore they don't exist. Not compelling at all.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is what property rights do, they drive the civilization itself, the innovation, research, increase of life standard, peace, prosperity...

Even granting that assumption, still doesn't get you to objectivity.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If property rights are violated, people will take a shit on productive work. They'll know it's not worth bothering if someone may come along and take it. Similarly, in a country that starts confiscating private property (taxing), well, rich people start to run and investors pull out or stop importing and the country goes downhill.

A monarchy, where the monarch is the sole-owner of all property in the country; the government and taxation are just an extension of the monarch's lawful and just exercise of their property rights. Sorry Luminon, but taxation does not violate your vaunted 'property rights'. Drinking Beverage


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That's how we know people won't start rioting if there was no government. They know it's not worth it. What is better, to shave your head and go looting for petrol like Mad Max, or to keep earning money and order some new stuff from Amazon while browsing the net? That's civilization, man.

Unless the standard of living is so shit (because of unbalanced distribution of wealth and property), they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by rioting.


(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Anyway, if you aren't all enthusiastic about what I say, just say so. It took me years to learn this stuff and I'd love to find someone who's going to be so enthusiastic that he'll pass it on to others. If you're just like... 'meh... well, I must look further. Not everyone's a world problem solver.

All those years wasted, man that's sad.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: