Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:54 am To repeat: there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior. All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

If there is no such thing as morals, then why do people (including us) discuss it? What's the point of worrying about something that isn't there? If morality is relative, then it is power - whoever has power, has the right and the right to define "morality". And if it is so and so simple, then there is nothing to discuss. Get strong enough before you dare to say anything.

nemos wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 10:09 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:54 am To repeat: there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior. All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

If there is no such thing as morals, then why do people (including us) discuss it? What's the point of worrying about something that isn't there? If morality is relative, then it is power - whoever has power, has the right and the right to define "morality". And if it is so and so simple, then there is nothing to discuss. Get strong enough before you dare to say anything.

Morals are the product of evolution.

People have preferences based on what has worked in the past.

So morality "is there" and it's not just something imposed by the powerful. The strong can impose something temporarily but it doesn't last if it's not something that people agree with. When the tyrant is gone, they dance on his grave.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:54 am

You wrote: empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world.

I did. I also wrote...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:52 pmThere's corruption and agenda in there as well

It's possible for both -- dumbasses up and down the line fuck up and then fuck up more trying to save face & empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world -- to be true.

*

It's yours for as long it doesn't belong to someone else, as has been the case for many millions throughout history in which ownership of another human to whatever degree was considered neither immoral nor illegal.

Yours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response. Morality is just a social/communal construct. Morality is just individual or collective opinion. Slavery, or any other atrocity, can only be judged thru the lens of time and place. There is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.

Funny thing is: no man wants to be a slave (not even the slaver), no man ever has thought to himself yes, it's proper and right another man should leash me and use me as he likes.

Yes, obviously, slavery, murder, rape, theft, defrauding, these happen. You see them as simple events that are wrong only becuz a society or culture say they're wrong. As you say...

there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior. All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

...to you, man can only be meat, can only be material. And his commodification, which you personally may find distasteful, you have no real objection to.

I see them as wrong (even if a society or culture gives them a ) becuz, as I say: a man, any man, every man, has a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. Slavery, murder, rape, theft, defrauding, are wrong, all the time, everywhere, even if everyone thinks they're A-OK.

*

So my question to you - beyond merely stating it as if it were some objective religious or philosophical truth instead of the existential quandary it really is - when did any such absolute moral claim ever exist, when in practice both morality and legality colluded to endorse the ownership of another to whatever degree considered legal throughout history in almost every country?

Apart from efforts or attempts made in your country and mine: there still is no consistent recognition of a man's natural rights, of man as a free will, of man as a creative/causal source, of man as a moral being.

Largely, man, any man, every man, is considered a potential commodity. Funny thing, though, no man every considers himself a potential commodity. No slaver, murderer, rapist, thief ever thinks it's fine he should be slaved, murdered, raped, robbed or defrauded. It's almost as if every man, any man, any where, any when, has an intuitive understanding of his ownness even as he denies (in the case of the slaver, murderer, etc.) the other guy's ownness.

-----

Mebbe we oughta move this conversation to one of the more appropriate threads...we're hijacking phyllo's.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:04 pm It was wrong of me to ask you a question knowing that your answer would involve my putting in some kind of effort that I am not prepared to put in. But thanks, anyway.

But of course! Think of it as nothing at all.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:47 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:04 pm It was wrong of me to ask you a question knowing that your answer would involve my putting in some kind of effort that I am not prepared to put in. But thanks, anyway.

But of course! Think of it as nothing at all.

In anticipation of your response, I have already taken the liberty of doing that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmIt's possible for both -- dumbasses up and down the line fuck up and then fuck up more trying to save face & empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world -- to be true.

I have yet to understand what the fucked up parasites in office (there are plenty of those for sure) would have had to gain by forcing a pandemic on the world. You must have an idea since you keep insisting it's true. I have no idea how covid got started, more likely through accident than intent, China being the main candidate with their loathsome, disgusting meat markets.

Because of what now looks to be radical climate change, it becomes more inevitable that future pandemics and plagues will have a greater potential to be released upon us as already warned by epidemiologists with those emanating from the rain forests prone to be the most deadly.

Of course, to accept that as a possibility requires the acceptance that climate change itself is very much in momentum.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmYours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response

I don't know what that means in the context of actual historical fact as mentioned.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmMorality is just a social/communal construct. Morality is just individual or collective opinion

...and yet you never deviate from claiming an absolute moral right to life, liberty and property! I know that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds as stated by Emerson, but do try to be a little bit more little when it comes to making your arguments a little bit more confluent.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmThere is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.

Precisely what I've been trying to convey through all our friendly discussions since no such moral claim exists anywhere as an objective fact!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pm...to you, man can only be meat, can only be material. And his commodification, which you personally may find distasteful, you have no real objection to

Even as a master of bullshit, this is one of the biggest pieces of BS you ever wrote. Where in my post did I give that impression ? Physically, we are certainly only meat as much as any other creature hunted for meat by another.

That's how nature designed it...not me!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmApart from efforts or attempts made in your country and mine: there still is no consistent recognition of a man's natural rights, of man as a free will, of man as a creative/causal source, of man as a moral being.

True there is no consistent recognition of natural rights, but there are always value systems associated with it which, as history long shows, may be opposite to what WE in these times re-adjust them to be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:11 pmLargely, man, any man, every man, is considered a potential commodity. It's almost as if every man, any man, any where, any when, has an intuitive understanding of his ownness even as he denies (in the case of the slaver, murderer, etc.) the other guy's ownness.

Most of us are commodities in one form or another, either for remuneration or by responsibility. But one can also be an absolute commodity to be bought or sold, as has happened for thousands of years in which your sense of ownness means nothing to the one who owns you or feels in any way anti-moral in regarding you as a functional commodity. Kids less than 10 years old working in factories for 16 hours is only one among a plethora of examples as to what human conscience is like regarding any form of self-interest, state or societal interest to which many millions have been sacrificed.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:30 am

'share' 'the world' with every one else.

How do you propose to teach or convince 8 billion or so individuals to share?

Do you still want to insist that taking the life of another, by blowing the head off of 'a body', is acceptable and justifiable if 'that one' just, for example, touched the believed 'your toothpick'?

No (cuz I never said or suggested such a thing). I maintain a man (or person, if you prefer) has an absolute moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I maintain it's moral to defend one's life, liberty, and property. I maintain it's moral to defend another's life, liberty, and property.

I just say that it is extremely hypocritical to claim that a man has a 'natural right' to his, and no other's, life and liberty while *also claiming that 'you', "henry quirk", can take another man's life and/or liberty when you so choose to.

*I never claimed such a thing.

henry quirk" has, to "itself" only anyway, 'justified' its stealing of things, from others, and then claiming those things to be "henry quirk's" property.

What have I stolen? Can you provide evidence of theft?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:30 am

'share' 'the world' with every one else.

How do you propose to teach or convince 8 billion or so individuals to share?

Do you still want to insist that taking the life of another, by blowing the head off of 'a body', is acceptable and justifiable if 'that one' just, for example, touched the believed 'your toothpick'?

No (cuz I never said or suggested such a thing). I maintain a man (or person, if you prefer) has an absolute moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I maintain it's moral to defend one's life, liberty, and property. I maintain it's moral to defend another's life, liberty, and property.

I just say that it is extremely hypocritical to claim that a man has a 'natural right' to his, and no other's, life and liberty while also claiming that 'you', "henry quirk", can take another man's life and/or liberty when you so choose to.

I never claimed such a thing.

henry quirk" has, to "itself" only anyway, 'justified' its stealing of things, from others, and then claiming those things to be "henry quirk's" property.

What have I stolen? Can you provide evidence of theft?

Do you have an Ayn Rand poster in your bedroom? You do realise that she was a massive hypocrite don't you?

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:31 am

I have yet to understand what the fucked up parasites in office (there are plenty of those for sure) would have had to gain by forcing a pandemic on the world.

Ask yourself who did well during and after.

do try to be a little bit more little

Er, you misread.

Here it is again (with a lil edit)...

Yours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response. You believe morality is just a social/communal construct. You say morality is just individual or collective opinion. Slavery, or any other atrocity, to you, can only be judged thru the lens of time and place. For you, there is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.

I don't know what that means in the context of actual historical fact as mentioned.

It's plain. You see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as an evidence of morality's subjectiveness. I see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as the violations of individuals' absolute moral claims to their lives, liberties, and properties.

Where in my post did I give that impression ?

Did I misjudge you? I was certain you were an atheist, a materialist, a determinist. Those categories are almost always part & parcel to the moral subjectivism you espouse.

Physically, we are certainly only meat as much as any other creature hunted for meat by another.

Yes. Are we only physical?

True there is no consistent recognition of natural rights, but there are always value systems associated with it which, as history long shows, may be opposite to what WE in these times re-adjust them to be.

Yes, various legal, cultural, societal systems spring up, some align with natural rights, most don't. But: natural rights (the absolute moral claim a person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property) is/are immutable.

As I say elsewhere...

Man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property.

Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:21 pmDo you have an Ayn Rand poster in your bedroom? You do realise that she was a massive hypocrite don't you?

I'm not an Objectivist. I don't give a rat's ass about Rand.

Extremists are always hypocrites.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:28 pm Extremists are always hypocrites.

Mebbe so.

What's my hypocrisy?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:28 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:21 pmDo you have an Ayn Rand poster in your bedroom? You do realise that she was a massive hypocrite don't you?

I'm not an Objectivist. I din't give a rat's ass about Rand.

Oh. I thought you were quoting her. Must be just a coincidence.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:28 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:21 pmDo you have an Ayn Rand poster in your bedroom? You do realise that she was a massive hypocrite don't you?

I'm not an Objectivist. I din't give a rat's ass about Rand.

Oh. I thought you were quoting her. Must be just a coincidence.

I was quoting me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:30 am

'share' 'the world' with every one else.

How do you propose to teach or convince 8 billion or so individuals to share?

Oh, I do not propose to teach absolutely anything, which one does not already instinctively, (but as of yet, when this is written, unconsciously,) knows.

I have already mentioned somewhere about how anytime something is wanted to be 'convinced' to another, then what is wanted to be shared, and another 'convinced of', is a great sign that that thing is not what is actually True, Right, nor good in Life. Also, anytime one feels that they are trying to be 'convinced' of something, then some sort of conflict will arise. Which, obviously, goes completely and utterly against 'a sharing and caring world, for everyone'.

Now, as for how to get the eight or so billion individual human beings, which you speak of here, to share, then this is extremely simple and easy. Especially considering the Fact that absolutely every one of them's internal and/or instinctive nature is 'to share'.

Although, and obviously, one would not necessarily believe this if and when one was to look at and observe how you adult human beings react and misbehave, in the days when this is being written.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm

Do you still want to insist that taking the life of another, by blowing the head off of 'a body', is acceptable and justifiable if 'that one' just, for example, touched the believed 'your toothpick'?

No (cuz I never said or suggested such a thing).

Oh okay, if you now say and believe so.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm I maintain a man (or person, if you prefer) has an absolute moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So,

What do you propose is to be done to a man who does not do what you 'maintain' here?

For example, what is to be done to a man who does 'touch' or 'takes' another one's life, liberty, or property?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm I maintain it's moral to defend one's life, liberty, and property.

So, when you are so-called 'defending' what you believe is 'yours', then it one ways is it possible to do this?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm I maintain it's moral to defend another's life, liberty, and property.

To defend them from who and/or what, exactly?

And, in what ways are permissible to defend another's life, liberty, and property in what you 'maintain' here?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm

I just say that it is extremely hypocritical to claim that a man has a 'natural right' to his, and no other's, life and liberty while also claiming that 'you', "henry quirk", can take another man's life and/or liberty when you so choose to.

I never claimed such a thing.

you never had to claim such a thing in clearly seen nor heard words. But think about how else you could 'defend' what you 'maintain' here without being hypocritical.

Now, if you have thought about it, then how else can one 'defend' your own made up and perceived so-called 'absolute moral claim' here?

However, if you have still not yet thought about it, then this might explain why you might not answer this question.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm

henry quirk" has, to "itself" only anyway, 'justified' its stealing of things, from others, and then claiming those things to be "henry quirk's" property.

What have I stolen?

The very 'land', which you claim is 'your property', is 'stolen land'.

you will, however, and of course, you 'bought' it with legitimate pieces of paper with numbers on it, also known as 'money', and that you now have another piece of paper with words on it, which legitimizes that 'that parcel of earth itself', is "henry quirks", 'a person' who lived for a relatively nothing period of time.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:28 pm Can you provide evidence of theft?

Yes. If human beings are not allowed to freely walk around the earth because one person claims that they 'own' 'this part of earth', then you are stealing, what is obviously 'not yours' anyway, from other living things.