3 ms·

> Morals are a fiction created by people to philosophize our own societies. This is preposterous, and frankly quite uninformed. It is especially ironic coming

> Morals are a fiction created by people to philosophize our own societies. This is preposterous, and frankly quite uninformed. It is especially ironic coming from you, since you are going round and accusing other people of being delusional. We have iron-clad proof that cavemen took care of members of their tribe that were born crippled, and of the elderly. For no benefit to themselves. We have evidence of morals going back thousands of years. This is a topic well researched by anthropologists, and is not up for debate. That's what the word 'civilisation' means - civilised behaviour and ethical standards. The people who think you can have a complex society, but have no respect for morals, are frankly savages. It is unfortunately quite common to come across people in technology that have great talents, but they are as informed and society and civics as a high-scooler. The other day I came across libertarians who think parents should have no obligations to feed their children and should not be held accountable if the child dies, because freedom. Might as well be speaking to Neanderthals.

tristor 2y ago
> This is preposterous, and frankly quite uninformed. I actually studied moral philosophy in a relatively well-respected institution (although I did drop out prior to getting any form of degree). Nothing I have learned about the world has ever indicated that there is any such thing as a moral absolute, although there are certain moral principles that tend to be enforced by most societies across history. You are arguing a position that both presupposes moral relativism and presupposes moral absolutism, and both cannot be true at once. At best, you are applying pragmatism towards your own political and economic beliefs and searching for post-hoc rationalizations, but the argument you have made in this entire thread is neither complete nor internally consistent.
- defrost 2y ago
  > because when push comes to shove if it's a choice between starvation/death or nearly any alternative, people will choose the alternative every time Every time? Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first has multiple documented examples to the contrary. > You are arguing a position that moral absolutism, Not by my reading; the argument was that iron clad examples of moral behaviour exist, not that we all share a core moral absolutism. > although I did drop out prior to getting any form of degree Not a suprise. To be fair even had you graduated you'd hardly be the Peter Singer of moral philosphy and those that attain such heights are not without counter argument. Maybe lay off the "I'm an (almost) expert and this is my strawman" comments, they're clearly weak and cast you in a poor light.
  - tristor 2y ago
    I don't claim to be an expert, just somebody with thoughts and opinions. It was a response to someone saying I was uninformed. I am not uninformed, I am well educated on the topic. Like most people, I am not an expert in most things, only in a very narrow subset of things. My expertise lies in some areas of technology, not really elsewhere. There is a vast gap between being an expert and being uninformed, it's not a binary distinction. > Every time? Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first has multiple documented examples to the contrary. I think it was clear that my statement of 'every time' was not to be taken literally. I don't think we're going to construct a well-supported moral framework defined in the most literal terms in the context of a set of comments on a website. Nothing anyone has responded to me with in any way supports the idea that communism is something that aligns with reality and is anything more than a fantasy for idealists.

tristor 2y ago

> This is preposterous, and frankly quite uninformed. I actually studied moral philosophy in a relatively well-respected institution (although I did drop out prior to getting any form of degree). Nothing I have learned about the world has ever indicated that there is any such thing as a moral absolute, although there are certain moral principles that tend to be enforced by most societies across history. You are arguing a position that both presupposes moral relativism and presupposes moral absolutism, and both cannot be true at once. At best, you are applying pragmatism towards your own political and economic beliefs and searching for post-hoc rationalizations, but the argument you have made in this entire thread is neither complete nor internally consistent.

defrost 2y ago
> because when push comes to shove if it's a choice between starvation/death or nearly any alternative, people will choose the alternative every time Every time? Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first has multiple documented examples to the contrary. > You are arguing a position that moral absolutism, Not by my reading; the argument was that iron clad examples of moral behaviour exist, not that we all share a core moral absolutism. > although I did drop out prior to getting any form of degree Not a suprise. To be fair even had you graduated you'd hardly be the Peter Singer of moral philosphy and those that attain such heights are not without counter argument. Maybe lay off the "I'm an (almost) expert and this is my strawman" comments, they're clearly weak and cast you in a poor light.
- tristor 2y ago
  I don't claim to be an expert, just somebody with thoughts and opinions. It was a response to someone saying I was uninformed. I am not uninformed, I am well educated on the topic. Like most people, I am not an expert in most things, only in a very narrow subset of things. My expertise lies in some areas of technology, not really elsewhere. There is a vast gap between being an expert and being uninformed, it's not a binary distinction. > Every time? Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first has multiple documented examples to the contrary. I think it was clear that my statement of 'every time' was not to be taken literally. I don't think we're going to construct a well-supported moral framework defined in the most literal terms in the context of a set of comments on a website. Nothing anyone has responded to me with in any way supports the idea that communism is something that aligns with reality and is anything more than a fantasy for idealists.