General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Hang on. Before you said "nothing is good/evil or right/wrong, it's absolute." now you say "good/evil right/wrong is clearly subjective". Which is it?

The statement is absolute(no exceptions) that good/evil right/wrong are based on a moral code that is subjective. How can something be right or wrong when a moral code has only the standard that a person says these things go in this column and these go in the other. I can appreciate that this is an emotional subject, my intention was to hopefully get some to see that to think people make decisions based on morals is flawed, as that person or persons has to first subscribe to what you consider moral.

Causing something, letting something happen, and using something that has already happened are 3 different things.

Causing 9/11 was impossible.

Letting it happen= less impossible, but pretty unlikely for a lot of the same reasons causing it is impossible.

Using it= absolutely happening.

like this. but impossible is a strong word. i'd state it as improbable to such an extent that it's practically impossible.

I disagree. Sam Harris uses health as an example: Who are we to say what is healthy and not healthy?

i think this is the wrong thread for this. we can have beliefs about pain and disease which are mistaken or incomplete, but we can still perform experiments and gather data to find a better absolute way.

I'd challenge that rape is a "necessary means to build a nation" on both moral and practical grounds.

And I very much doubt the abducted wives accept it particularly well.

i agree, according to the morals of my society as well. on practical grounds, however, love-marriages are very expensive propositions in time and effort in comparison to forced/arranged marriages. and the success rate of these differing systems aren't much different anyway. but if someone were raised with different morals, like in Kyrgyzstan, an abducted wife would accept it as a normal part of life and even participate in continuing the tradition.

and according to the Roman origin myth, "Fearing the emergence of a rival society, the Sabines refused to allow their women to marry the Romans," thus abduction and war was their only recourse. if the choice is between my clan dying off or abducting women from a rival clan, i think the choice is a foregone conclusion.

CW is your position that like... events are just events, things happening. Then we put right/wrong etc on it. So someone being raped is just something happening?

Edit: Btw if you stopped using one liners and explained yourself we might make some headway here.

Yes, time flows forward and events unfold, all of the universal processes continue, most of which humans have no emotional attachment to, those that we do, we tend to put on a scale of how they feel to us personally and the people we are close to, and to a lesser extent our community, our state, our country, the human race, mammals, living things, and the planet(this is not an inclusive list nor is it necessarily in order). The problem is that the scale is made up, it's how that person feels about something or how they perceive other people feel about it, and as long as anyone can define their own scale, their own moral code, as long as there is any disagreement, then there is no set good/evil or right/wrong.

But, as you claimed for good and bad, "these are simply labels made up by us".

So why can't we say that humans suffering some maximum imaginable amount of pain, for no good reason, is bad? And as such causing people some maximum imaginable amount of pain, for no good reason, would be evil?

You can say either of these things, you just can't prove them one way or the other. I think you were originally trying to compare good/bad with healthy/unhealthy and now you are trying define pain as necessarily bad or evil?
It's simple, health is defined as being free from illness, pain or injury; by this definition suffering an unimaginable amount of pain is not healthy. Now, good is defined as that which is morally right, and moral is defined as the distinction between right and wrong, and right is defined as in accordance with what is good and proper, and evil is defined as that which is morally wrong or bad, and wrong is defined as not in accordance with what is morally right or good, and bad is defined as, drum roll please, not good in any manner. Is it not obvious?

we can have beliefs about pain and disease which are mistaken or incomplete, but we can still perform experiments and gather data see if there's a better absolute way.

Which is exactly my point. We can be mistaken about questions of morality, of good and evil, but that doesn't invalidate scientific pursuit of moral truths.

All you have to accept to say that questions about morality can be answered scientifically is that ultimate suffering for all people is bad. And that someone who is given the choice of causing such misery and pain, and knowingly chooses to do so, is evil.

CW is saying that the universe doesn't give a fk, which is unquestionably true.

even human beings, the moral guardians of the universe, don't care that much. it is easy to sit back and say "i don't like rape", passive morality, but when was the last time that you seriously looked into the suffering potentially caused by your own actions, or went out of your way to prevent someone else from suffering.

most people aspire to be "moral", whatever that is, it makes us feel like we are part of something bigger. It is like a religion in that sense, although better because it is slightly harder to point out the holes in morality than it is to point them out in say, christianity. but like religion, morality is completely of our own making.

maglame, what would you say if i told you i was going to scientifically investigate which colour is the prettiest?

in the grand scheme of things, the human race goes extinct as does every species you see alive today if your time horizon is long enough.
So "in the end", did anything done by anyone actually matter?
I say no.

But that does not mean it's okay to purposely cause pain and suffering where it can be avoided. Sure, society likes to slap labels on things, and it's all a matter of perspective, but this is not license to just go wreak havoc wherever you want just because. And if you try that on me, I'll shoot you between the eyes.

maglame, what would you say if i told you i was going to scientifically investigate which colour is the prettiest?

I'd say that it's a pretty interesting thing to study, and I would love to hear how you plan do perform this investigation.

I have a few ideas of my own, if you would like to hear them. You could for instance start by trying to find colors that are perceives as less pretty. I imagine measuring relevant brain activity to be involved in this study. It would both be interesting to see absolute preferences to various colors, but also relative preferences. I.e. do I like brown more or less right after looking at a green screen for a long time, than if I see brown after watching a red screen for a long time?

I'd say that it's a pretty interesting thing to study, and I would love to hear how you plan do perform this investigation.

I have a few ideas of my own, if you would like to hear them. You could for instance start by trying to find colors that are perceives as less pretty. I imagine measuring relevant brain activity to be involved in this study. It would both be interesting to see absolute preferences to various colors, but also relative preferences. I.e. do I like brown more or less right after looking at a green screen for a long time, than if I see brown after watching a red screen for a long time?

oh you....

science is the observed and the repeatable, not the perceived and the possible.

a color preference would be social science.

But that does not mean it's okay to purposely cause pain and suffering where it can be avoided.

I would check raise anyone, even if I knew not doing so would avoid their pain and suffering

Sure, society likes to slap labels on things, and it's all a matter of perspective, but this is not license to just go wreak havoc wherever you want just because. And if you try that on me, I'll shoot you between the eyes.

exactly. i will respect your views and even defend them, but don't tread on me.

I would check raise anyone, even if I knew not doing so would avoid their pain and suffering

getting c/r'ed builds character.

I would check raise anyone, even if I knew not doing so would avoid their pain and suffering

touché