3 ms·
> Hard disagree. That's a utilitarian mindset. You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a util
by boxed 3y ago
> Hard disagree. That's a utilitarian mindset.
You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic.
> Morals is relevant regardless of whether the assumptions are faulty.
That makes no sense. If your underlying beliefs are wrong you will commit atrocities. If you truly believe that a baby that grows up to be a Christian (or whatever) will be tortured in hell for all eternity, then it is an infinite good to kill that baby before that happens. This is what happens with bad assumptions. This isn't a hypothetical example btw, this is what real people believe TODAY.
> Inasmuch as we are humans and there's no such thing as objective fact,
Well that's just false.
> you're saying is trivially true but also too abstract.
Too abstract... for what?
> Don't sci-fi me, don't insult my intelligence.
That makes no sense. You are now using hysterical and emotional language because you are failing to be convincing with logic. That's not me insulting your intelligence, that's YOU insulting your own intelligence.
> I've little patience for moral relativism as an argument for this kind of debates.
There we agree 100%. I'm not arguing moral relativism at all. In fact quite the opposite. YOU argued moral relativism above with "no such thing as objective fact".
> if we reach such a dead-end where the only possible "solution" is genocide. It's ok to say "we cannot solve this problem, we cannot follow this abhorrent path".
That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time.
This is the point of thought experiments: to really test your logic to the extreme and see if it still makes sense. Your axiomatic approach does not survive this test, as you clearly demonstrate.
- the_af 3y ago> You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic. No, I understood you just fine. What you're saying is a form of the utilitarian view, "if the assumptions were good..." (or "this was bad because the assumptions were bad"), and I'm contradicting you: the assumptions don't matter, because genocide is always wrong. Argue all you want about logic, but genocide is always wrong. > That makes no sense [blah blah] > That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time. Extinction is not the same as genocide. The rest of your argument falls apart, but it was never all that solid or logical to begin with. Best not proceed down this road: I find your attempts at "logic" silly, and this will inevitably devolve into a flamewar (I'm already witnessing some of your debate tactics, and I can't say I'm impressed). Let's stop here.
- developer93 3y agoYour killing babies point demonstrates a common error with this kind of debate: there are a ton of steps you could take to stop a baby growing up Christian before you jump straight to killing it. A lot of them are also probably abhorrent like but might be better than killing.