5 ms·
The quote is throwaway nonsense. No argument is made. I counter it with my own- Yes. By what standard are bad companies or good people measured? Do you define
by batch12 2y ago
The quote is throwaway nonsense. No argument is made.
I counter it with my own- Yes.
By what standard are bad companies or good people measured? Do you define that? Religion? The current popular opinion?
- Etheryte 2y agoBy your own moral compass of course. There is no such thing as objective good or objective bad, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Surely you would've covered this in literature class in your youth? Likewise, me thinking someone is a bad person doesn't mean it's some objective and universal truth. It's literally, like, my opinion, man.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jgalt212 2y agoDon't be so cynical. There are universal truths.
- Trasmatta 2y agoSuch as?
- jgalt212 2y agoMuggers are bad people.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoMuggers disagree.
- jgalt212 2y agoYou must be a fan of the Barber Paradox.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoCare to explain? This does not appear to be related.
- owlcom 2y agoWhat is a "mugger"? Does someone who has ever committed a mugging carry that label with them for the rest of their life? If the mugging was committed on a serial killer, is it still morally indefensible in your view?
- gruez 2y ago>What is a "mugger"? Someone who uses threat of violence (real or otherwise), to steal from people. >Does someone who has ever committed a mugging carry that label with them for the rest of their life? Easily sidestepped by claiming that they're bad people in the moment, or for that action. You can still call an law-abiding citizen that volunteers in his community and donates to charity a "bad person", if one day he goes rogue and punches someone in a fit of range, for instance. > If the mugging was committed on a serial killer, is it still morally indefensible in your view? Yes, because such actions are extrajudicial (how do you know the victim was actually a serial killer?), and sets a dangerous precedent (how soon until people are mugging each other for being Trump/Kamala supporters?).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> You can still call an law-abiding citizen that volunteers in his community and donates to charity a "bad person", if one day he goes rogue and punches someone in a fit of range, for instance. Sure, but is that universally true? Would someone be necessarily wrong if they still said that the puncher is not a bad person and was not a bad person in that moment?
- gruez 2y agoYes. I've given reasons why punching people are bad in general. Unless you can give a counterargument why it wouldn't be bad, I think it's fair to conclude "punching someone in a fit of rage is universally bad". This isn't math where you have to prove the non-existence of something to prove something is a universal truth.
- Etheryte 2y agoSurely you can see that there are trivial counter examples to this? Someone stealing to save someone's life, or to feed a starving child, or etc. From their perspective they won't be bad people, it's not universal.
- gruez 2y ago>Someone stealing to save someone's life, or to feed a starving child, or etc. "mugging" =/= stealing
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThis is a bad faith argument. What if they just said mugging instead of stealing?
- gruez 2y agoSticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now? Note the argument isn't that every action has a universal good/bad categorization, just that "universal truths" exist. Your comment is a bad faith argument.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> Sticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now? Arguing against a weak interpretation of someone’s argument is arguing in bad faith when a stronger interpretation is plausible. It is in the guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- gruez 2y ago1. If you really want to get into rules lawyering, the guideline was arguably broken when "mugging" was substituted for "theft" a few comments up. That most certainly is not "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says". In fact it's the opposite. Therefore calling out "mugging" =/= stealing isn't "bad faith argument". 2. The original claim is "There are universal truths". Substituting that for "There are universal truths in every circumstance" isn't "strongest plausible interpretation", it's changing the argument entirely and attacking a strawman. It's like claiming "a^2 + b^2 = c^2 holds for right angle triangles", someone else objecting "yeah but it doesn't hold for all triangles", and then invoking "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" when he's called out for changing the claim.
- crazygringo 2y agoA significant proportion of famous philosophers would disagree.
- gruez 2y agoMost "famous philosophers" are moral relativists? Can I get a source on that? They might disagree on what exactly is moral, but they present more cogent arguments than "Can I do X and be a good person? No." or "that's just like, your opinion, man".
- crazygringo 2y ago>> A significant proportion > Most That's quite a leap you made there. No, I wouldn't say a majority are. But a significant proportion are. That's what I said. Moral relativism is a mainstream philosophical position. It's not some crazy fringe view or something.
- gruez 2y ago>Likewise, me thinking someone is a bad person doesn't mean it's some objective and universal truth. It's literally, like, my opinion, man. There's literally an entire branch of study that tries to formalize it so it's not just "It's literally, like, my opinion, man".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Etheryte 2y agoStudying philosophy doesn't make it any more of an absolute truth, the numerous and conflicting schools of thought in it are a good testament to that. Philosophy is the study of systems of thought, not an absolute truth about the world.