3 ms·

I invite you to point out a flaw in my observations. Sometimes it's good to be able to rationality ground your morality instead of merely feeling it. Guess whi

I invite you to point out a flaw in my observations. Sometimes it's good to be able to rationality ground your morality instead of merely feeling it. Guess which one will hold up when actually challenged in real life.

ArchReaper 9y ago
Your whole post is disingenuous and full of logical fallacies.[1] >Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero. This is a flawed thesis if you're still trying to argue w.r.t. lordnacho's post. >Take a homeless person First off, there's no reason to believe that that person was or was not homeless prior to the situation. This is called an "Argument from ignorance"[2] >let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn This premise is really a False analogy[3], and explicitly ignores the other warning signs in his post that would indicate that this is not what the situation truly is. Also, in most developed countries, there are very specific labor and tenant laws. "I'm letting him sleep on my couch if he mows my lawn once a week" is not a legal agreement. It is also not equivalent to "I have a live-in maid" - which also has a buttload of legal protections. All of your other statements are riddled with half-truth bullshit and I'm not interested in explicitly explaining the rest to you. If you are, in fact, serious about being able to "rationality ground your morality" then I suggest you take a look at some of your statements and think about how grounded in reality they truly are. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_an...
- naiveattack 9y ago
  My comment was not an argument/direct analogy to the parent. They were a series of observations designed to illustrate a particular/contrasting point. Or rather an attempt to show where the boundaries lie in the grey of such thought. Read the reply again without assuming the parents context. Do you agree with the observations presented?
  - ArchReaper 9y ago
    Morality is an inherently grey subject. Boolean morality only exists in a vacuum. I do agree with your underlying sentiment that it's all about perspective, but I don't feel like you're adding anything to the conversation, as your post could essentially be boiled down to "morality is about perspective" - which, in my personal opinion, falls into the realm of common sense. However, after reading some of the other comments in this thread, I might have to rethink that. It's interesting to see how many people seem to be unable to see through their own moral outrage. I think we both are in agreement in sentiment, but I do not think you effectively communicated your ideas in a way that would be beneficial to a constructive discussion. It's too easy for people who disagree with you to point out flaws in your argument as opposed to understanding and discussing your true point.
wavefunction 9y ago
Your entire post is a strawman. And in my opinion your observations are shameful. I am ashamed FOR you.
int_19h 9y ago
Any attempt to rationally ground morality is going to boil down to some set of axioms that are just taken for granted: this is good, that is evil. Sometimes people try to get around this by choosing different words - for example, a popular adage is that rational morality is "do no harm, except to prevent greater harm". The only problem with it, of course, is that you then have to define "harm", and it something fundamentally just as subjective as "evil" (as evidenced by the fact that the same thing can be harmful or not depending on consent - i.e. on the subjective determination of a person).

ArchReaper 9y ago

Your whole post is disingenuous and full of logical fallacies.[1] >Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero. This is a flawed thesis if you're still trying to argue w.r.t. lordnacho's post. >Take a homeless person First off, there's no reason to believe that that person was or was not homeless prior to the situation. This is called an "Argument from ignorance"[2] >let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn This premise is really a False analogy[3], and explicitly ignores the other warning signs in his post that would indicate that this is not what the situation truly is. Also, in most developed countries, there are very specific labor and tenant laws. "I'm letting him sleep on my couch if he mows my lawn once a week" is not a legal agreement. It is also not equivalent to "I have a live-in maid" - which also has a buttload of legal protections. All of your other statements are riddled with half-truth bullshit and I'm not interested in explicitly explaining the rest to you. If you are, in fact, serious about being able to "rationality ground your morality" then I suggest you take a look at some of your statements and think about how grounded in reality they truly are. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_an...

naiveattack 9y ago
My comment was not an argument/direct analogy to the parent. They were a series of observations designed to illustrate a particular/contrasting point. Or rather an attempt to show where the boundaries lie in the grey of such thought. Read the reply again without assuming the parents context. Do you agree with the observations presented?
- ArchReaper 9y ago
  Morality is an inherently grey subject. Boolean morality only exists in a vacuum. I do agree with your underlying sentiment that it's all about perspective, but I don't feel like you're adding anything to the conversation, as your post could essentially be boiled down to "morality is about perspective" - which, in my personal opinion, falls into the realm of common sense. However, after reading some of the other comments in this thread, I might have to rethink that. It's interesting to see how many people seem to be unable to see through their own moral outrage. I think we both are in agreement in sentiment, but I do not think you effectively communicated your ideas in a way that would be beneficial to a constructive discussion. It's too easy for people who disagree with you to point out flaws in your argument as opposed to understanding and discussing your true point.

wavefunction 9y ago

Your entire post is a strawman. And in my opinion your observations are shameful. I am ashamed FOR you.

int_19h 9y ago

Any attempt to rationally ground morality is going to boil down to some set of axioms that are just taken for granted: this is good, that is evil. Sometimes people try to get around this by choosing different words - for example, a popular adage is that rational morality is "do no harm, except to prevent greater harm". The only problem with it, of course, is that you then have to define "harm", and it something fundamentally just as subjective as "evil" (as evidenced by the fact that the same thing can be harmful or not depending on consent - i.e. on the subjective determination of a person).