yeahiknow3 @ yeahiknow3 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

108

Joined

1 yr. ago

Depends on whether you’re supporting the right side (if there is one) and on the consequences of arming a particular group of insurgents.

How is a family spending their money on an apartment they now won’t receive “a millionaire that is not a billionaire”? Not to mention, China loves billionaires. They have more of them than the US. It’s a fascistic shithole.

It was raining continuously so it’s possible.

Why are you obsessed with the color of people’s skin and indifferent to their humanity? Should children be beaten, abused, mutilated, sold off to be married just because their parents are part of some abrahamic cult?

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

Imagine if this were a Marvel movie and evil aliens were draining the life force of the planet, so the Avengers are like “we shall stop them!” Then this shithead shows up and starts whining about politics.

The Supreme Kangaroo Court

“Only someone running for president matters, not the actual president.”

Wat

They defend journalists from having all their limbs.

IDF

I don't believe all pointless killing is bad

In the example you gave, the plant killing wasn’t “pointless” (meaning unjustified). If a person is pulling up weeds because they like how things look without the weeds, that’s potentially justifiable.

A reason is a fact that counts in favor of some belief or course of action. The reason that you like something could be such a fact. But the reason that it might cause suffering or end an innocent life would be a countervailing fact. Human beings are capable of rational judgement. We do this all the time in science, and we have to assume that our judgements aren’t arbitrary, or we descend into nihilism, which would undermine your capacity even for logic (whose axiomatic structure is also based on intuitions).

This is why nihilism is not a position any serious philosopher defends. It’s self undermining. You would need to reason your way to the conclusion that nihilism is true in order to conclude that reasoning is impossible.

You understand an intuitive belief can exist for all of those things right? (Nationality, race, speciation.)

The meaning of the word “intuition” in philosophy is a bit different. It’s an intellectual given, part of a web of belief that would ideally be free of contradictions. Your belief that 1+1=2 is an intuition.

We don’t think of people as having an “intellectual given” that being a different nationality is morally relevant. We think of them as having a bias (or a prejudice), because the whole concept of a nationality is made up, and any intellectual examination of nationalism will reveal it’s not an intellectually coherent category.

Even if it were, it would be a very weak intuition, because the whole concept of nationality is made up. Race and speciation are like that. We made up these categories out of convenience and they have no real meaning.

Suffering is not made up. The goodness of life is not made up. How do I know that? Because I have suffered and I have lived. I am in direct contact with these phenomena.

No I actually don’t. I am very worried that Trump will win because she’s a little bland. IMO, she is more progressive than Biden and likely to make better decisions. I’m just stressing that she might be a little… bland for the American horde. They tend to expect an entertainer.

For an American president? I mean, yes, hence my complaint. But to be clear, that’s not something the presidential job of making good decisions technically requires, except insofar as electing an American politician has become tantamount to choosing a babysitter for the masses.

Your morality isn’t arbitrary?

This is literally nihilism.

I’m genuinely happy to discuss metaethics, but I’m getting a sense that you don’t actually care about ethics very much, given your nihilism.

Ex Falso Quodlibet. Your moral reasoning is inconsistent, which means that you’re either a nihilist or an idiot. I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt.

“Murder” is an illegal killing. I don’t oppose murder; I oppose immoral killing. That’s different.

If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species? Moral philosophers consider this question fairly settled, so let me know if you have some novel insights.