Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:31 pm You are just making a fool of yourself.

On this forum fools are in excess. I am never in danger of ranking in the top 99 percent.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:48 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:30 pm It was seven years of higher education all told.
I learned statistics yes.
Can you please give it your best shot to show how you think the subject of statistics relates to the question of moral objectivism.
I need a good laugh this afternoon.

So you spend 7 years studying and then... nothing?

Moral progress is measurable. And therefore it's objective to any scientist.

You can tell which way on the graph is the "right" way.
You can tell which way on graph is the "wrong" way.

That's a measurable difference. And therefore it's objective to any scientist.

The end.

What do you consider "moral progress"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:50 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:31 pm You are just making a fool of yourself.

On this forum fools are in excess. I am never in danger of ranking in the top 99 percent.

QED

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:59 pm What do you consider "moral progress"?

Just about all of the data/evidence here: https://ourworldindata.org/

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:59 pm What do you consider "moral progress"?

Just about all of the data/evidence here:

Is this the best you can do, quote a stat?

So you think "moral progress" has something to do with life expectancy?
Would you care to support this idea?

Would you also consider massive population growth as "moral progress"? Or nuclear proliferation?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:33 pm So you think "moral progress" has something to do with life expectancy?
Would you care to support this idea?

If I must support the idea, you might as well support the contra-positive. No?

Suppose the graph was trending the other way. Heading for 0 within 100 years.

Tell us why that's not a moral concern.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:33 pm Would you also consider massive population growth as "moral progress"? Or nuclear proliferation?

Your society is flourishing! Well done. You are going to need cheap energy you know and nuclear is pretty cheap.

Not cheap enough for sure, but definitely better than all the other non-renewable options!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:33 pm So you think "moral progress" has something to do with life expectancy?
Would you care to support this idea?

If I must support the idea, you might as well support the contra-positive. No?

Suppose the graph was trending the other way. Heading for 0 within 100 years.

Tell us why that's not a moral concern.

You have yet to establish these changes as having a moral element.

Now, why do you think Life expectancy has a moral element, and why are you avoiding nuclear proliferation in this discussion?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:13 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:33 pm Would you also consider massive population growth as "moral progress"? Or nuclear proliferation?

Your society is flourishing! Well done. You are going to need cheap energy you know and nuclear is pretty cheap.

Not cheap enough for sure, but definitely better than all the other non-renewable options!

In your opinion. Thus subjective.
An opinion not widely shared.
Where is the objectivism here?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:44 pm You have yet to establish these changes as having a moral element.

If I have to establish that they do you might as well establish that they don't.

Falsification is way easier.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:44 pm Now, why do you think Life expectancy has a moral element

Why do you think Life expectancy doesn't have a moral element?

It sounds like you are saying that it's of no moral concern whether human life expectancy gets to 0.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:44 pm and why are you avoiding nuclear proliferation in this discussion?

Am I avoiding it? Do you think the graph should be going in the other direction?

It's really puzzling as to why you even care. As a moral subjectivist up or down, it's all relative. Right?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:57 pm

It's really puzzling as to why you even care. As a moral subjectivist up or down, it's all relative. Right?

nuclear weapons.png

No "IT'S" not all subjectivist in any sense. Wever the fuck "IT" is in this context.

Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!
Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

Really? What the fuck is on your mind?

Is more or less more or less moral?
And if so WHY?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!

Tell me how it doesn't.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

I don't know what you are asking. Are you saying the numbers are morally meaningless?

Neither up nor down is immoral.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Is more or less more or less moral?

There we go! You are asking the question. So you necessarily believe neither direction is about morality.

It's really weird considering you brought up nuclear proliferation into the discussion.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:45 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!

Tell me how it doesn't.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

I don't know what you are asking. Are you saying the numbers are morally meaningless?

Neither up nor down is immoral.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm Is more or less more or less moral?

There we go! You are asking the question. So you necessarily believe neither direction is about morality.

It's really weird considering you brought up nuclear proliferation into the discussion.

I've handed your arse to you on a plate.
Fuck off back on ignore

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:33 pm I've handed your arse to you on a plate.
Fuck off back on ignore

A self-congratulatory circle jerk

No worse loser than the kind of loser who "hangs arses" and "wins arguments".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:57 pm

It's really puzzling as to why you even care. As a moral subjectivist up or down, it's all relative. Right?

nuclear weapons.png

No "IT'S" not all subjectivist in any sense. Wever the fuck "IT" is in this context.

Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!
Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

Really? What the fuck is on your mind?

Is more or less more or less moral?
And if so WHY?

The above confirms your knowledge re morality is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, no wonder you like images with a very thick skull.
As usual you will cry 'F/Off' every time you are cornered without any substance to counter.
I don't give a damn with your infantile crying, I'll response whenever there is an opportunity for me to refresh my knowledge on the relevant subject.

The first thing we need to define 'what is morality'.
Morality is the eliminating of 'evil' to enable its corresponding 'good'.
What is evil is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
What are evil [immoral] acts and thoughts are exhaustive with no ambiguities and exceptions.
One immoral element is dying prematurely and not naturally.
Therefore the trend of increasing life span is a moral progress.

Increasing the average life-span could lead to increase in population which is moral but if there is overpopulation, then it many be detrimental to the well being of humanity, thus in this case it would be immoral.
In this case, humanity must take the moral steps to ensure there is no over-population as a matter of moral principles. [in the future, not now].

Slavery is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and there is a trend of reduction [statistics] is Chattel Slavery to the extent that it is banned legally [politics] in all countries. Whilst it is political move, overall it due to the inherent moral impulse within all humans.
Thus there is moral progress [statistically] with Chattel Slavery.
There are other forms of slavery at present, but because there is an inherent moral function with all humans [active in different degrees] [statistics -normal curve], there is pressure from individuals and NGOs urging politicians to deal with this problem.
That there are pressure to deal with all forms of slavery as opposed in indifference as in the past is a sign of moral progress.

Generally, all humans are embedded in their DNA with a moral function as adapted from evolution.
As with evolution, the moral function within all humans are unfolding and being activated very slowly at present. This is why the majority of humans at present are more aligned with 'evil' tendencies than moral tendencies.

This is why there is a need to recognize this inherent moral functions as existing objectively so that humanity can understand its mechanisms more precisely and expedite its activity to facilitate a greater speed of moral progress on average [statistics].