HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| EmperorZelos
EmperorZelos
[12368832]
[2009-12-10 20:35:54 +0000 UTC]
"zelos"
(Sweden)
# Statistics
Favourites: 5367; Deviations: 17; Watchers: 45
Watching: 976; Pageviews: 42578; Comments Made: 3259; Friends: 976
# Comments
Comments: 474
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks for the fave on my book of bimbo story!
π: 0 β©: 0
hey there thank you for the watch! Have a great day!
π: 0 β©: 0
thank you for the +watch, I hope you'll have a fun with my drawings
π: 0 β©: 0
Fankee for the +Watch, trying to get back to drawing more.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thou dost not find purpose in that which makes thee happy, thou find happiness in that which hast purpose.
So if thou always and only strives for happiness thou will find it always fleeting and end up feeling empty, but if thou instead seeks purpose, thou will find true happiness.
Understand?
π: 0 β©: 1
Did you understand what I said at all?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet what you wrote here reflects you understood nothing of it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never stated mindless pursuit for happiness as first cause for anything, I explicitly stated nothing fo the sort and what I said explicitly denounces such activity.
π: 0 β©: 1
what exactly dost thou think thou said about happiness?
Because I said that happiness can never be a goal.
I said as he said: "Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that"
π: 0 β©: 1
First of, stop using such archaic words. It only looks bad here.
Humans always strive for happiness because we all want to be happy. The general issue is that people want instant gratification which is what I said was the issue as you can do constructive things that brings happiness too and they are better than short term ones.
π: 0 β©: 1
No we really don't. People not used to happiness will actively sabotage their own attempt to acquire happiness. What we really desire is comfort, familiarity but first and foremost purpose.
Happiness is never a goal, and it is contradictory to think of it as a goal.
That beyond anything else, is the primary problem with utilitarianism.
Tell me how a lotus eating machine can be discredited as bad using only utilitarian moral, without appealing to any higher purpose beyond Earthly pleasures.
π: 0 β©: 1
We do because it is what we want. People might sabotage themselves for reasons of all sorts but it doesn't mean that they strive for it any less.
Comfort and familiarty are amongst the things that make people happy.
As for seeking purpose, that is not what people do, they just want to live and be happy. Purpose is after all what we make it.
"That beyond anything else, is the primary problem with utilitarianism."
define utilitarianism here.
"Tell me how a lotus eating machine can be discredited as bad using only utilitarian moral, without appealing to any higher purpose beyond Earthly pleasures."
Simple, I am a moral creature, I am intelligent, I set things, it is detrimental to humans as a species and any group, therefore it is bad what it does.
Does it mean it's immoral? No, the locus is amoral, it has no morals, it just does.
There is no higher purpose or anything, it's just a simple fact that I am intelligent, they are not, therefore I get to decide.
π: 0 β©: 1
If there is no higher purpose, then there cannot be morals, so every action becomes amoral
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you really that kind of pathetic person that needs something else to give you things, morality, purpose etc? That is just sad.
Without higher purpose there can be morals, it is increadibly EASY to do it. We humans have done it for all of our history come up with morals.
π: 0 β©: 1
the logic goes like this.
For morality to have meaning it needs to be real.
To be real it needs independent existence.
Like the saying goes, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it still makes a sound, because it exists independently of our ability to perceive it.
The same must be the case for morality, it needs to be real (moral realism).
That requires the existence of the absolute,
There is a very fundamental difference in the justification of an action from "it is the right thing to do" tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.phpβ¦
to "it amused me" tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.phpβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Your logic is flawed at line 2
"For morality to have meaning it needs to be real."
It doesn't need to be real to have meaning because meaning is something we humans ascribe to things, concepts etc. It doesn't matter if it's real or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
If meaning is something we prescribe to things and not something inherent in the thing then meaning is not real, because we could then simply choose not to.
That means that we can decide whether the slaughtering of the innocent is moral or not.
Think of it in physical terms. Can we decide that one piece of wood weights 1 kilogram, and another 2,5 or is their weight inherent in the wood itself?
π: 0 β©: 1
Meaning is real like everything we humans make.
Some people choose to not give things maening and that is their perogative, it doesn't mean that meaning is any less real than any other concept we humans make up. It's real because we exist and we value it.
Wether or not slaughtering innocent is moral or not depends on what your goal in life is, if it is to die as quickly as possible that is a good way to go about things.
Your analogy is flawed, you are comparing a physical property of matter that can be measured with a property that is not inherent to an object but put onto it by sapient beings
Wether wood costs 5 pounds a kilo or 8 pounds a kilo is decided by us humans, it is not intrinsic to the wood. The price however is real because we humans exist.
π: 0 β©: 1
and that goes back to my initial point about the absolute, we cannot judge others action without a universal standard of what is moral and immoral, otherwise everything must be amoral.
It doesn't even make sense to talk about morality if it is subjective as it would be equivalent of two person arguing over what type of cake is better, cheesecake or chocolate cake.
And while I were talking about the weight of wood, not the price, understand that prices are determined by supply and demand, which is also something real and not imaginative, like thou want morality to be.
π: 0 β©: 1
"and that goes back to my initial point about the absolute, we cannot judge others action without a universal standard of what is moral and immoral, otherwise everything must be amoral."
Incorrect again, we can judge things being moral and immoral without having anything absolute. I can judge you as being an immoral prick and I don't need anything but the axioms I have to do it and they can be picked by people differently which is why there are different opinions about morality.
"otherwise everything must be amoral."
Events that happen are amoral because they just happen and there are no humans to judge them or do them. Actions done by humans are moral or immoral because we are the judges of it.
It doesn't even make sense to talk about morality if it is subjective as it would be equivalent of two person arguing over what type of cake is better, cheesecake or chocolate cake."
It does because we can argue over whose morality is better given what we all want. Do you want to live? Then it's a good idea to adopt the morality of "killing is wrong" because if you think killing is wrong, guess what? I am going to kill you to make certain you don't kill me or anyone I care about.
"And while I were talking about the weight of wood, not the price, understand that prices are determined by supply and demand, which is also something real and not imaginative, like thou want morality to be."
Morality is just as real, it is real because we humans exist just as demand and supply exists only because we humans exist. If we humans don't exist, there is no supply, there is no demand, there is no price, there is no money.
π: 0 β©: 1
thy argument is circuler.
The purpose of human judgement is to measure the morality of an action, just like it is the purpose of a weight to measure the weight of an object. It does not define it, and the object have the same weight irregardless and independently from that of the weight.
π: 0 β©: 1
It isn't circular because morality IS the human judgement. Not the otherway around.
"It does not define it, and the object have the same weight irregardless and independently from that of the weight."
Except things don't have an intrinsic morality to it. Without humans there is no morality.
π: 0 β©: 1
How is that position different from "morality is imaginary"?
π: 0 β©: 1
You don't understand the difference between something being imaginary and somethings existence being depended upon us?
Is demand imaginary just because it depends on us humans? Is it imaginary because we humans dictate it as we feel?
Are laws imaginary because they exist only because we do? That laws are dictated by us humans as we feel fit?
If you cannot tell the difference you have some serious problems.
π: 0 β©: 1
Demand comes from a need, a need is a condition, something determined not something chosen, therefore not imaginary.
Laws are commandments first, and if we include the term "just law" they need to be congruent with morality. If we do not recognise objective morality, then no law is just which means that all laws steam from arbitrary judgements that the strong inflict upon the weak.
None of these things depend on humans, they just effect us.
π: 0 β©: 1
The existence of demand and need and law and all that depends upon human existence, that is the point.
Morality is the same, it's existence depends upon us, but it is not an inherent property of something because it is we who make it exist for actions by our own existence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay this "discussion" have deteriorated to this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjβ¦
Of thou art just going to contradict me, then I have better things to do.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are the one who think things by humans must be independed of humans which of course is assinine. We both know you're doing this fallacious reasoning because you want to say "there is a god", you are assuming a conclusion before reasoning for it.
Without humans, morals don't exist, value doesn't exist, none of those things exist. The world simply is, things simply happen and no object or action has any value. They just are going about their business in accordance to the laws of nature. That is because you cannot measure value, you cannot measure meaning, you cannot measure morals independed of humans or cultures or anything. As long as we don't exist those things don't exist either hence they are not intrinsic properties of actions, events or objects. With humans we have morals because morals is about the interaction between us humans, how we view actions with one another. That is because morals are product by us, we create morals, we make them exist, we make meaning exist, we are the creators of these things and as long as we exist, so do they. When we stop existing, so does meaning, so does value, so does morals. When humanity goes extinct, all of those things are lost until the next sapient species arises and then the whole process starts over again.
π: 0 β©: 1
then ethic is simply relativistic and that deterioate into nihilism with every action being amoral.
I do not claim there is a God I just claim, and have logically proven it to be so, that we need the absolute in order for morality to exist.
So just admit that thou art an amoral nihilist.
π: 0 β©: 1
"then ethic is simply relativistic and that deterioate into nihilism with every action being amoral."
Not at all, yes ethics are relative, they depend entirely on what your goal is. Actions are not amoral if humans are around because we judge them.
"I do not claim there is a God I just claim, and have logically proven it to be so"
That's one mighty claim you're making, where is your nobel prize? You're the first one to ever have done this! Shall I contact the commite? Where is your scientific publication for this? Which journal?
"that we need the absolute in order for morality to exist."
This is a flawed premise from the begining.
"So just admit that thou art an amoral nihilist."
I would, if I was, I am neither amoral nor a nihilist. Saying there is no absolute source of morality besides humans does not make one either nihilist nor amoral, Nihilists says we cannot know anything ever beyond ourselves for example which is irrelevant.
I am moral because I judge things as being moral and immoral.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>