Views on morality and individuals versus group

[CaptainQuasar]

Morandian, your preaching is not philosophy.

I agree. Moridin's subversive peanut-butter-based religion is a cardinal example of why the world is going to heck in a handbasket these days.

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

Okay, so you're saying that by your definition of morality, buying a jar of peanut butter is a moral act because you have the objective of making a sandwich? Does it seem perhaps that you might be examining something other than morality here?

Fact: Something we know
Value: Something we want to keep
Morality: What we use to figure out how to keep our values by using facts!

And if you're now claiming that what I said about peanut butter is perfectly in line with your definition, why did you previously claim it was nonsense and dogma? Little bit of the flippetty floppetty flippy flop, eh?

I though you where simply making a non-contributive post, as you frequently did in the other topic.

JoeDawg, your excessive use of CAPS shows that it is evident that I have hit a nerve in your dogmatic ideology of moral relativism. Let's see if we can sort this out.

Ever been to a hospital? Coma and ICU patients don't eat or drink, but they survive.

(1) leads to (2). It is simply an empirical fact. Even ICU patients need certain specific nutrients to be sustained. If not, they die. That is a fact.

A human's nutrition is only valuable IF you value that human being.

No, the value of nutrition follows from the objective need of nutrition. The fact that you are here and not dead, shows that you acknowledge that nutrition is an objective value stemming from the objective need of nutrition.

I reiterate my argument:

1. Human beings have a metabolism which requires nutrients to be sustained.
leads to
2. Human beings need to eat and drink in a certain way to survive.
leads to
3. Nutrition is an objective value.
leads to
4. We ought to eat and drink in a certain way.

 

[Moridin]

I agree. Moridin's subversive peanut-butter-based religion is a cardinal example of why the world is going to heck in a handbasket these days.

⚛​

No, moral relativism is a religion. Instead of god, you have culture and whatever culture says is morally correct. You worship culture.

 

[Moridin]

Furthermore, the is-ought dichotomy is self referentially incoherent. It seems rather silly to assert that since it supposedly IS impossible to derive "ought" from "is", that we OUGHT not to make references to ought. Every time you advance the is-ought dichotomy in discussions, you are contradiction yourself.

 

[JoeDawg]

No, the value of nutrition follows from the objective need of nutrition.

Wrong.

The fact I value my life has nothing to do with the fact that nutrition fuels my body.

I value my life for all kinds of reasons, all of which are subjective.

I value nutrition, because I value my life.

If I didn't value my life and there are many examples of this in nature, then I wouldn't value nutrition. You use anecdotal evidence and faulty logic.

If you are so tired of repeating yourself... then stop. Your nonsense adds nothing to the world. Its all Morandian ego.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Fact: Something we know
Value: Something we want to keep
Morality: What we use to figure out how to keep our values by using facts!

Yeah, like I said, you've “proven” that if someone values peanut butter it's a moral act for them to go buy some.

No, moral relativism is a religion. Instead of god, you have culture and whatever culture says is morally correct. You worship culture.

I am not a moral relativist. I have said nothing about my moral beliefs in this thread nor in the other one you linked to. You are simply yet again trying to claim that other people cannot have a discussion without assuming that your beliefs are true.

But as I said in the other thread, watching you shadow-box with yourself and frequently punch yourself in the face is quite amusing. Carry on.

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

The objective value of nutrition comes from the fact that there is an objective need for nutrition to survive.

You continue to be unable to refute my argument and make a lot of red herrings in your attempt to salvage the religion of moral relativism. By claiming that the is-ought dichotomy is valid, you are simply contradicting yourself. I almost feel sorry for your inability to see past your own dogma.

I am not a moral relativist. I have said nothing about my moral beliefs in this thread nor in the other one you linked to. You are simply yet again trying to claim that other people cannot have a discussion without assuming that your beliefs are true.

Since you do not agree with me, you must be advancing some form of moral-antirealism, which meets the same fate as moral realism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The objective value of nutrition comes from the fact that there is an objective need for nutrition to survive.

Yeah - exactly what I said. Peanut butter is nutrition, therefore by your definition buying peanut butter is a moral act.

You continue to be unable to refute my argument and make a lot of red herrings in your attempt to salvage the religion of moral relativism.

I'm not trying to refute your argument. And I'm not making red herrings - I'm laying out a point and then pursuing it myself, not trying to trick you into pursuing it.

What I'm doing - since you obviously need me to explain this - is demonstrating that your arguments about what morality is lead to absolutely absurd conclusions rather than any clear or usable definition of morality.

Since you do not agree with me, you must be advancing some form of moral-antirealism, which meats the same fate as moral realism.

“Meats”? Tsk, tsk, you food religionists, you just can't stop talking about food can you?

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

Yeah - exactly what I said. Peanut butter is nutrition, therefore by your definition buying peanut butter is a moral act.

Sure, why not. It is valid since I advocate moral realism.

In any case, as I have argued before, the proponents of the is-ought dichotomy are simply contradicting themselves. It seems strange to advocate that since it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is", you ought not to argue that you can derive an ought from an is.

Now here is what you have all been waiting for: By arguing against me, you are proving my point, since you are performing the stolen concept fallacy.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Sure, why not. It is valid since I advocate moral realism.

In any case, as I have argued before, the proponents of the is-ought dichotomy are simply contradicting themselves. It seems strange to advocate that since it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is", you ought not to argue that you can derive an ought from an is.

Now here is what you have all been waiting for: By arguing against me, you are proving my point, since you are performing the stolen concept fallacy.

You're so locked into the scarecrows you have propped up to try to attack people who you believe to be your ideological opponents that you're having difficulty understanding what's being said here.

No one has said “it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is".” Collections of facts and moral obligations are two completely different things.

It's because you're confusing those two things that a corollary of your statements is that for someone who wants to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, buying a jar of peanut butter is a moral act.

You demonstrate your complete disinterest in anything resembling philosophy by saying that the above assertion on the morality of buying peanut butter is a completely reasonable statement. You don't want to inquire into what morality is, you just want to advance your agenda. You're simply rummaging around in a bag of tricks and rhetoric and throwing things at the other people trying to have a discussion. Like a monkey flinging his poo at zoo visitors.

⚛​

 

[Evo]

I can't even keep up with this. Locked until I can wade through it.