3 ms·
Yes, I know what they are responding to. I also noticed that they, and you, failed to comment on whether what I said is true. They could do better, but don't,
by xlnt 18y ago
Yes, I know what they are responding to. I also noticed that they, and you, failed to comment on whether what I said is true.
They could do better, but don't, that's practically the definition of immoral. They value the wrong things, again, that's practically the definition of immoral. What am I wrong about? That some of the best things ever made are better than football?
- menloparkbum 18y agopokemon and football are higher up on the universally accepted scale of morally justifiable hobbies than internet forum flamebaiting. sorry about this - someone needed to let you know.
- xlnt 18y agoI'm serious. You, apparently, aren't. You're just calling me a troll. I think on PG's scale that is DH0 - Name Calling. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- rms 18y agobut his was funny
- Retric 18y agoIf you really want a DH6... guilty of having immoral values. they ought to find better things fun, but instead are wasting their lives. There are no single accepted set of moral values so the term has no inherent meaning. Where some groups say your thoughts are a moral choice it's far more common to say it's your actions that are moral in nature. Of those groups that feel your thoughts are important most feel doing good works is not a moral imperative let alone creating beauty in the world. So you are basically suggesting a world view without support. And thus you are just defining your terms and not presenting an argument supported by fact. This prevents a DH6 as there is no central point that could be refuted. You are not presenting an argument as much as presenting an unsupported opinion which falls under the same category as gibberish and is not refutable. PS: "If you really want a DH6..." present an argument supported by facts.
- xlnt 18y agojust because people don't agree on what moral knowledge is true does not make the term meaningless. you go on to discuss what some existing opinions on the matter are, with no particular regard for which are true, just how common they are; that isn't a way to figure out what is true, and you haven't suggested a better view than the one i put forward. PS No one wants a DH0 reply. And they shouldn't be upvoted. PPS You aren't allowed to call someone's writing "gibberish" in a DH6, nor ought you write significant meta about what the person is or isn't doing, or does or doesn't "really want", or anything like that. Nor does it makes sense to imply you are going to give a DH6 reply and then, within it, say that it's not possible to give one.
- Retric 18y agojust because people don't agree on what moral knowledge is true does not make the term meaningless Words or phrases only have meaning when there is a shared understanding of what they mean. GLARPF people who JAVARA understand this SLFARL VERORLRA when they SFLLKKLSA. You can't agree to that statement because it has no meaning but at the same time you can't disagree with it. If you define love as the sky and then say "the sky is love" there is no meaning to those words. Basically defining terms is semantically identical to gibberish. IMO, this is why people gave up on philosophy as a science. PS: I don’t disagree with your original statement because it lacked meaning.
- xlnt 18y agoThere is shared understanding of what 'morality' means. There is also disagreement. The same can be said of a wide variety of other words, such as 'christianity', 'freedom', or 'liberal'. None of these words are meaningless or useless in conversation despite the existence of some disagreement about their meanings.
- mlinsey 18y agoNo, I wouldn't call that immoral at all. Immoral, to me at least, is when you cause harm to other people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding you don't want to devote enormous amounts of time and effort to something creative. For example, you can touch plenty of people's lives and have a tremendous positive impact on the world just by being there for your friends and family, something that devoting yourself to an intensely creative endeavor probably interferes with. Don't get me wrong - entrepreneurs, authors, and other creative people are special people. That's why they are rewarded (sometimes) with praise, admiration, or money. But that most emphatically does not mean that they are better or more moral people than those who choose to live more ordinary lives.
- xlnt 18y agoThe moral question is: how should I live? But anyway, use whatever words you want, I've told you what I meant: living better, more fruitful lives with more learning and thinking. And people who could do that, but don't, are guilty of living badly, living below their abilities. This is not just a matter of opinion or taste. For example, we are only able to communicate here because of scientific achievement; that is objectively more important than pokemon. And, for example, no one is perfect, so people who correct more of their mistakes end up better than those who don't. People who think and learn more are more able and effective at correcting their mistakes to improve themselves.
- radu_floricica 18y agoMorality comes from living and the way you live, not the other way around. Morality is just one of the tools we use to live better. It's definitely not something to judge how well we live.
- xlnt 18y agoif morality is a tool to use to live better (i agree), then people who don't use it, or use little of it, are immoral, and ought to change.
- trekker7 18y agoI upmodded you because I think you raise a valid argument. But I do disagree, because I don't think it's immoral for a highly skilled doctor to quit his profession and open up a comic book store to sell Pokemon cards instead. Yes, society will be worse off for it. But does society have a right to tell the former doctor what profession he should take up? Morals would dictate that people have a basic right to do what they enjoy, as long as they aren't hurting anyone by their actions. But is it a waste of talent for a good doctor to quit his job and pursue a less philanthropic effort? Yeah, that's probably valid.
- xlnt 18y agoI don't think he owes anything to society. I think he should do what's best for himself. If that's pokemon, so be it, but he'd be better off, and live a better life, if he cared more about thinking and learning and doing great things. Good ways of life reward the doer most of all.
- trekker7 18y agoYeah, I can definitely agree with that dude. The doctor's life might be overall better if he finds a way to enjoy it.
- izak30 18y agoThis is completely contradictory to your original argument. Your original argument was 'if you can do "better" and you're not-> you are guilty of having immoral values' Completely neglecting the subjectivity of morality, this statement above says that he should do what is best for himself, even if that is pokemon or football (citing your examples only..nothing wrong with pokemon or football), and I think the only global definition of morality is what one 'should do' (with a different set of rules in each subset definition).
- xlnt 18y agoi don't see how you can call my position contradictory just b/c you disagree that morality is objective. that's not an internal contradiction -- i consistently consider it objective.