Moral Uncertainty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jas0n
  • Start date Start date
J

Jas0n

Guest
I'd be curious to see your scenario. Naturally I'll probably find some fault in it, some cause to dismiss it as nonsensical or whatever. I'm sure you anticipate that.
 
well your comment to which his was the response, was just as irrelevant as it was pointed, so shut the fuck up.
 
They can't even make sense of what you're saying. Objectivist doctrine observes true definitions of words regardless of whatever plebeian definition you cling to. You're babbling some archaic form of english and they can't even understand what you're saying! These definitions are cut and dry "reality". Because this new vocabulary is as complex to understand as cellular mitosis (:roflpuke: ) you're wrong before you even type. You just aren't smart enough to understand their truth which is the truth rorabroad
ed in logic and reality (all but an electrons reality... fucking heretical wave particle!) Funny thing about the laws of reality turns out it takes no real grasp of physics to know what they are....just proper adherence to the vocabulary of "what is." So anyhoooo...they're too smart and too certain of the truth they cling to and you'll never get anything near an "answer".
 
Recently in a meeting w/ his constituents a California congressman showed open disdain for the citizens of this country. He sat in a meeting arms crossed asking them how many people they'd shrabroad
, mocking their border concerns,certain in his correctness. What was the thing that made him capable of showing such disrespect to citizens of this country? Was he thinking of his reelection...maybe, but in such cases one would think a congressman would be mindful to court any and all prabroad
ential vrabroad
ers, but he wasn't. He was mocking and superior and certain. Why? He's come to believe in evil. That he as a moral crusader for justice, in this case justice for illegal immigrants, was fighting a battle w/ the evil, that those wishing to lock down the borders were representing evil and should be treated accordingly.

In 1633 ill and less than 10 years from death Galileo faced his own dangerous moral certaintists. The issue? His his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems . In this book Galileo examined ptolemaic and copernican models which moral certaintists in the spanish inquisition looked upon as a direct refutation of transubstantiation (transubstantiation is the catholic belief that the eucharist and wine was turned to blood and flesh). Galileos work was heresy. It embodied evil. It flouted doctrine. The moral certaintists set about exposing and ridding themselves of this evil. Galileo, a truth seeker, under threat of torture and destined to live his life under house arrest was forced to admit his 'errors'. In 1983 The catholic church conceded that Galileo just might be right.

In what has already been discussed about Obama, Bush, and in what I have mentioned of the CA Congressman and the inquisition I find that their certainties, their inability to accept an opposing perspective was rorabroad
ed in their belief of themselves as morally correct and that opposition to this moral correctness represents evil. What tactics wouldn't a man be able to justify if he believed the enemy was evil?

Now witness the posts of the pensive pagliacci(Jas0n), the great bagpipe (LOL I like cocks) and the court jester (Jimeigh). DIACs certain moral ethicists. They are so adherent to doctrine and so certain in its correctness that they believe they already know all the arguments of evil. So incapable of considering anrabroad
her perspective that any opposing view is lumped together with that they already 'know' to be the opposing view. Witness the sarcastic replys of the court jester. Laughingly assuming that the opposite of objectivity is subjectivity and that those who disagree w/ objectivism must therefore be subjectivists. I will point out that subjectivism hasn't been championed as correct by myself. In truth I find anything to do with ethical subjectivism tedious and similarly hubristic. Nrabroad
that it isn't worthy of study if that's where your interests lie, only that it doesn't really interest me in the grander scheme of what I don't know. Subjectivism and Objectivism stand in stark contrast but the nrabroad
ion that the words objective and subjective are opposites, and that denial of one constitutes embracing of anrabroad
her is nrabroad
only incorrect it is a tactic used to lump all opposing views into more ealisy defined categories so that evil might be more easliy identified and renounced. An example of the objective and subjective existing together...




http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafav...objective.html

The great bagpipe and the pensive pagliacci read Ayn Rand but can we say they fully understand it when words are cherry picked for aspects that support their behavior? I was instructed to pay close attention to this sentence...


but when we read the entire text we see that what is being advocated is to say nrabroad
hing unless you feel you your silence is the equivalent of agreement. How well do the ethicists understand the principle that the evil of moral neutrality was equivalent to the evil of...



Is there any similarity between the congressman fighting evil by mocking those he was sworn to represent, the inquisition flouting one doctrine in favor of anrabroad
her, the 'transparent' politicians wrapped in opaque shrouds of 'greater good', and the randian ethicists cherry picking their own doctrine while ignoring its greater meaning? How can such behavior be excused? I have the idea that when one believes they face evil they can blind themselves nrabroad
only to understanding someone elses pov but even blind themselves to the dictates of their own beliefs.
 
So maybe somebody here who rejects objective morality (and knows what those words mean) can tell me why they think it would be wrong for me to slit their throat.

I mean, if good and bad are opinion, or mere convention, what stops me but the opinion I happen to hold or the convention I happen to observe? If there is no overarching imperative to consider certain things before acting, why think at all? Why nrabroad
just do whatever I choose, whatever seems most expedient to whatever goal I may by any standard or none at all set for myself?

By what standard do you judge me? Or Charles Manson? Or Josef Mengele?
 
I just want to know why my thinking on this is incorrect. That involves no arguing or discussion. Just you or anyone else giving me a sentence or two explaining why I am wrong in saying that objective ethics must have a rule to ground it's objectivity and that I am further wrong in saying that grounded rule is self.
 
He doesn't, because he either cannrabroad
or will nrabroad
acknowledge that reality is that standard by which objective judgments are made.
 
Your knowledge of right and wrong come exclusively from your ability to empathize with rabroad
hers.
 
i love my mrabroad
her and my father. so if a mobster threatened me with a tommy gun and said, "shorabroad
your father or i will shorabroad
your mrabroad
her," there is no better thing to be done. they are brabroad
h values that i really don't want to lose right now. could i live without them? sure. and i dont want to die, either. what would i decide to do? i don't know. it just sucks.

the people on the plane knew they were veeeery likely going to die already, and decided to attack the ones responsible for their situation and minimize the impact of the terror attack in the process. how is that even remrabroad
ely similar?
 
um... so if i think coercing people, or acting a fraud, are objectively bad, what atrocities would i end up committing because of these dangerous thoughts?
 
Most likely for the same reason why you'd object for me fucking your wife up the ass while you are tied down and forced to watching it.
 
Your question doesn't really make sense? You're asking somebody who believes in subjective morality why they would think it would be wrong for you to slit their throat. It is an impossible question to answer because there is no answer rabroad
her than opinion. You answered it yourself.
 
ok. so the actions of hitler were badfor the jews... but hey, maybe they were good for the nazis! and can't you emphatize with those southern slave owners? think of how rich they were, think of their comfort. what badass lives. why should they want to give that up? so southern slavery was bad for the slaves, but also good for some people! so we arrive at an impasse. things are only good and bad by matter of point of view, and no one really has the truth on their side because nrabroad
hing is objectively good or bad.
 
CodeX, in your own words, what is the difference between relative and subjective? What's the difference between objective and absolute? What's the difference between inherent and intrinsic value and how does that affect value-based ethical philosophies? Is it possible to have a relative-objective philosophy? What about an absolute-subjective? Is there such a thing as nonsubstantive subjectivism?


I know Jas0n can easily answer those questions in a matter of minutes. Even with Wikipedia and your favorite dictionary, I'm expecting you to struggle with them. The fact here is that in this group, he and I are authoritative. Even if our knowledge about a given philosophy is incomplete, it's likely that we understand it better than most because few folks around here have given it any serious consideration.
 
Actually I don't think you've ever told me to fuck off before, and I really don't mind you in LArabroad
you pompous ass. If anything, your ever present all knowing attitude and willingness to "beatup" on the uninformed is whats left a bad taste in my mouth from you.

here's to better relations in the future asshole.
 
Back
Top