I'm curious as to whether you'd say the same if 99% of current human employment was made economically unfeasable by automation.
Yes, I would. Except if it was that serious, I'd be saying, "Let's scrap our money-driven society and just let people do what they like for a living."
I mean, why have a relative utopia where everyone is free to pursue their own interests instead of having to work to survive, when we can have self-imposed genocide instead?
Because I'd rather have the "relative utopia"?
Of course, I doubt you thought through your position in terms of the subject at hand, you just wanted to sound hard-nosed and tough.
Anyone you disagree with obviously didn't think through their position.
I have actually named an action that neither of us could consider acceptable under any conditions.
What? Do you even know what moral relativism is? I believe that morals are just opinions. As such, even if I said that I thought something was wrong, it would just be my personal opinion. Where did I explicitly say that it was 100% factually wrong?
Second of all, even if I did say that, that wouldn't prove that there are absolute morals. At most, it would prove that I'm not a moral relativist.
I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
So do I. That's why I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe that it is more likely that morals are mere opinions because they hardly seem different to me. Don't you think that since neither side seems to have any sort of evidence for their beliefs, that what you believe in in the end is just a preference?
I do believe in subjectivity, but I recognize it has limits.
You say that as if you know it has limits. As if you know that there are absolute morals. Do you not doubt yourself at all?
do you believe it is possible to know anything at all?
Yes. But not when it comes to opinions.
You are, of course welcome to believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
You are, of course welcome to not believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
Is the law of gravity an appeal to popularity?
It's fairly easy for me to see that there is gravity. No matter what it is, a lot of people believing something does not make it true.
Go ahead, prove me wrong!
I don't see what unicorns or leprechauns have to do with moral relativism. "You're not absolutely certain of everything. Therefore, whatever I say exists does exist!"
I believe that morals are mere opinions because they seem no different. You like this behavior, so you think it is "okay." You dislike this behavior, so you think it is "wrong."
In the end, whether or not you believe in absolute morals is mere preference. No matter how many times you come up with examples that I cannot disprove, I do not believe it will prove that absolute morals exist. Where does your confidence come from?
yet tacitly admit that killing a Girl Scout and hacksawing her head off to make a planter is NEVER OK.
Where did I say that it was "never okay"? Whether it is "okay" or not is an opinion, I believe. I personally believe that it is not okay. But I do not believe that my opinion is an absolute fact of the universe.
All of us who aren't too mentally damaged to live anywhere but in total isolation.
Appeal to popularity. The fact that a lot of people say something does not mean that it is true (interestingly enough, I also asked how we would know that this decider is correct to begin with).
I ask again: do you believe in subjectivity in any form? It seems as if you think that stating an opinion means that you're stating an absolute fact of the universe.
You demand scientific reasoning of me
I don't demand anything from you. You just seemingly keep misinterpreting me. I only mean to say that it is possible and that the answer is unknown to you or me. I do not truly believe that you will be able to prove anything.
All I'm telling you is that unless you can provide some sort of proof, your arguments probably won't be convincing to me. That doesn't mean I'm saying that you're wrong. It just means that I'm saying that I probably will not believe you.
It shows that in it's "absolute" form, it's bankrupt.
Bankrupt of what? I see all morals as mere opinions. My opinions may conflict with other peoples' opinions. I don't see why it's "bankrupt" in any form. It shows nothing but a difference of opinion.
Do you even believe it's possible to hold an opinion at all? Since you failed to answer any of my previous questions, here they are again: Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
Unless you can answer those for me and prove that some things are absolutely evil, your argument that some things are absolutely evil will not be convincing to me (much like trying to prove that god exists).
Name one.
I don't know any. Similarly, prove that one doesn't exist. I merely said that it was possible, and we don't know how many exist.
Let's turn it around. When would hacksawing the heads off of Girl Scouts and using them as planters NOT be wrong?
It would not be universally wrong if someone thought it wasn't wrong and moral absolutes didn't exist.
So anyway, like I said, go ahead and have the surgery then, just stay away from me and mine because you'll have made a monster of yourself.
But I don't think that you actually demonstrated that people that don't have emotions (or lack certain ones) don't want to avoid getting hurt themselves (prison, etc).
What are you talking about? I never said that you have to respect someone else's morals even if they have them. For instance, you can have your own morals and act against those who you believe are doing "wrong." Nothing about moral relativism states otherwise. All that is required is believing that morals are subjective. You don't have to "respect" anything.
Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.
Then a better solution, I think, would be to somehow notify them that they are possibly infected and take proper precautions to stop them from spamming (on an individual basis). I think that's better than blocking the port for everyone.
All of those things require some feeling of connection to others
Thinking about how you will probably end up in prison requires a feeling of connection to others?
So when the girls scouts knock at the psycho's door and he hacksaws their heads off to use as planters he's just being "differently moral" and we should respect that?
Straw man. I didn't say that everyone should respect everyone else's morals. I don't believe that morals are absolute.
But my real point wasn't about whether morals were absolute or not. It was about the fact that since different people can have different moral codes, someone could do something to someone else that you find "immoral." Them being a sociopath (or something similar) has little to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all money really is.
Your overly-simple example fails to demonstrate the multiple flaws that requiring money has.
human beings will always want to assign worth to something
But that doesn't mean that money will always exist.
You will never get rid of either a monetary system or even a basic concept of bartering.
I see. You must be able to predict the future.
I'm curious as to whether you'd say the same if 99% of current human employment was made economically unfeasable by automation.
Yes, I would. Except if it was that serious, I'd be saying, "Let's scrap our money-driven society and just let people do what they like for a living."
I mean, why have a relative utopia where everyone is free to pursue their own interests instead of having to work to survive, when we can have self-imposed genocide instead?
Because I'd rather have the "relative utopia"?
Of course, I doubt you thought through your position in terms of the subject at hand, you just wanted to sound hard-nosed and tough.
Anyone you disagree with obviously didn't think through their position.
What else would you suggest? Do nothing? Besides trying to do something else, what other option do you have? Protest against the machines?
So, what, everyone, being unemployed, just sits in the dark and starves ?
I think that would be one of the best times to scrap our money-driven society.
And if you can't, too bad.
Anyone who doesn't want logs/wants them deleted quickly is an evil criminal.
I have actually named an action that neither of us could consider acceptable under any conditions.
What? Do you even know what moral relativism is? I believe that morals are just opinions. As such, even if I said that I thought something was wrong, it would just be my personal opinion. Where did I explicitly say that it was 100% factually wrong?
Second of all, even if I did say that, that wouldn't prove that there are absolute morals. At most, it would prove that I'm not a moral relativist.
Teachers absolutely cannot keep track of all their students 100% of the time
And sometimes GPS devices fail, I'm sure. It's almost as if there are probably no perfect solutions...
How did humanity ever survive without GPS?
I probably am, since I also miss why adults sink so much money into games.
Hobbies aren't allowed!
Also:
I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
So do I. That's why I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe that it is more likely that morals are mere opinions because they hardly seem different to me. Don't you think that since neither side seems to have any sort of evidence for their beliefs, that what you believe in in the end is just a preference?
I do believe in subjectivity, but I recognize it has limits.
You say that as if you know it has limits. As if you know that there are absolute morals. Do you not doubt yourself at all?
do you believe it is possible to know anything at all?
Yes. But not when it comes to opinions.
You are, of course welcome to believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
You are, of course welcome to not believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
Is the law of gravity an appeal to popularity?
It's fairly easy for me to see that there is gravity. No matter what it is, a lot of people believing something does not make it true.
Go ahead, prove me wrong!
I don't see what unicorns or leprechauns have to do with moral relativism. "You're not absolutely certain of everything. Therefore, whatever I say exists does exist!"
I believe that morals are mere opinions because they seem no different. You like this behavior, so you think it is "okay." You dislike this behavior, so you think it is "wrong."
In the end, whether or not you believe in absolute morals is mere preference. No matter how many times you come up with examples that I cannot disprove, I do not believe it will prove that absolute morals exist. Where does your confidence come from?
yet tacitly admit that killing a Girl Scout and hacksawing her head off to make a planter is NEVER OK.
Where did I say that it was "never okay"? Whether it is "okay" or not is an opinion, I believe. I personally believe that it is not okay. But I do not believe that my opinion is an absolute fact of the universe.
All of us who aren't too mentally damaged to live anywhere but in total isolation.
Appeal to popularity. The fact that a lot of people say something does not mean that it is true (interestingly enough, I also asked how we would know that this decider is correct to begin with).
I ask again: do you believe in subjectivity in any form? It seems as if you think that stating an opinion means that you're stating an absolute fact of the universe.
You demand scientific reasoning of me
I don't demand anything from you. You just seemingly keep misinterpreting me. I only mean to say that it is possible and that the answer is unknown to you or me. I do not truly believe that you will be able to prove anything.
All I'm telling you is that unless you can provide some sort of proof, your arguments probably won't be convincing to me. That doesn't mean I'm saying that you're wrong. It just means that I'm saying that I probably will not believe you.
It shows that in it's "absolute" form, it's bankrupt.
Bankrupt of what? I see all morals as mere opinions. My opinions may conflict with other peoples' opinions. I don't see why it's "bankrupt" in any form. It shows nothing but a difference of opinion.
Do you even believe it's possible to hold an opinion at all? Since you failed to answer any of my previous questions, here they are again: Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
Unless you can answer those for me and prove that some things are absolutely evil, your argument that some things are absolutely evil will not be convincing to me (much like trying to prove that god exists).
Name one.
I don't know any. Similarly, prove that one doesn't exist. I merely said that it was possible, and we don't know how many exist.
When is it OK?
Universally right? "Right" and "wrong" are just opinions to moral relativists.
Would you let any person who can even conceive of a time when it would be OK anywhere near anyone you love?
No. But what does that have to do with moral relativism.
Some are bad at it and go to prison.
And some (who knows how many) don't do anything. Just like some people with those emotions don't do anything.
Let's turn it around. When would hacksawing the heads off of Girl Scouts and using them as planters NOT be wrong?
It would not be universally wrong if someone thought it wasn't wrong and moral absolutes didn't exist.
So anyway, like I said, go ahead and have the surgery then, just stay away from me and mine because you'll have made a monster of yourself.
But I don't think that you actually demonstrated that people that don't have emotions (or lack certain ones) don't want to avoid getting hurt themselves (prison, etc).
there do exist absolute wrongs.
Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
just stay away from me or anyone I care about after and don't blame me if you end up strapped into old sparky.
Well, I'm sure my brain wouldn't be turned to mush and I could still consider the consequences (prison) of my actions.
What are you talking about? I never said that you have to respect someone else's morals even if they have them. For instance, you can have your own morals and act against those who you believe are doing "wrong." Nothing about moral relativism states otherwise. All that is required is believing that morals are subjective. You don't have to "respect" anything.
Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.
Then a better solution, I think, would be to somehow notify them that they are possibly infected and take proper precautions to stop them from spamming (on an individual basis). I think that's better than blocking the port for everyone.
All of those things require some feeling of connection to others
Thinking about how you will probably end up in prison requires a feeling of connection to others?
So when the girls scouts knock at the psycho's door and he hacksaws their heads off to use as planters he's just being "differently moral" and we should respect that?
Straw man. I didn't say that everyone should respect everyone else's morals. I don't believe that morals are absolute.
But my real point wasn't about whether morals were absolute or not. It was about the fact that since different people can have different moral codes, someone could do something to someone else that you find "immoral." Them being a sociopath (or something similar) has little to do with it.
If someone could abuse it, ban it for everyone!
while praise is sung of socialism, communism, and violent revolutionaries like Mao, or Che, or Stalin.
When does that happen? "Socialist" and "communist" are sometimes even used as an insult. And I don't think those people are often praised at all.
The fact if you eat a carrot or some other vegetable a full life form needed to die in order to keep you alive.
I don't think many people care about a plant (something that, to us, doesn't visibly feel pain or have any sort of intelligence) dying.
And if they don't want to sell on those conditions, have you justified downloading it off TPB or using AnyDVD or a nocd crack?
That would likely depend on who you ask.
I'm sure this would work well against people who think that something being slightly better than something else means that it is good.
They do such a good job at stopping them, and they're such good people. What I think is "wrong" is factually wrong!