cynicist

I wonder what your views are on it. I think it's an interesting and complicated issue for sure. Personally, I accept the idea of my body as my property and that I can do whatever I wish with it, however, I'm conflicted when it comes to suicide. Killing yourself is the ending of all decision making, which can make sense to me in cases of extreme physical pain where there are no good alternatives, but when it comes to psychological pain I'm not as certain. I had suicidal feelings during my teenage years but I'm very happy that I did not pursue that, because the pain I experienced has lessened significantly since then. I obviously think it's irrational to kill yourself in those circumstances because your feelings can change. And we can't make the argument that killing yourself is rational in general or we wouldn't be here. So my conclusion is that it's heavily dependent on the specifics of the situation. Preventing a suicide through force on the basis that an individual is in an irrational state where they can't make that decision can be made into a self-defense argument I think. People are just afraid that you can label anyone as incapable and justify any use of force that way but I don't think that's the case because we're talking about suicide in particular. I wanted to talk about the e-mail in particular but lost interest when I read that Shelly doesn't consider one's life/body to be owned by them. At that point you can justify anything.

There's no historical context here, no passage of time at all. I would say it's just as likely in this situation that they popped into existence the same time as me. We only approach the explanations that we have (scientifically) because of our knowledge of how things changed over time. Perhaps you are biased by your perception. You say entropy sits confused, but aren't we also part of that entropy? You say that matter is disorganized relative to us, but look at the planet that supports our life. We have large bodies of water, rocks, dirt, all sitting on top of a thin crust with a molten core. We have an atmosphere with air that we can breathe while surrounded by empty space. Seems to me that a lot of organization took place before life here was even possible. Occam's Razor is useful, but you can't compare something we know to be possible (a human existing and writing a screenplay) with an all powerful creator being. I also marvel at the odds of our existence, but I don't then leap forward and claim something that is even less likely!

He means that being able to empathize with others allows you to see more easily when they are not empathizing with you. The same phenomenon occurs when trying to figure out whether someone has technical expertise in something like computers: It's far easier when you yourself are technically competent.

I don't mean it's an intentional test on the girl's part, I mean that's how I perceive it now since she never attempted any deeper conversation. You remind me of Alessandro Juliani in your profile photo. I'm a huge fan of his acting work.

If it's a permanent attribute then how can a right be given or taken away? What would be the point in protecting them if they could not be violated? I'm telling you, it's hard! (though please keep them coming if you like, the closest I could get was 'a legal construct')

Try to define what a right is exactly. If you can come up with a good definition I'd love to hear it. (I've tried, it's not as easy as it sounds)

That's not a moral theory. The goal of a moral theory is always the same: to be good. If I put forth the theory that murder is morally good, that means for everyone and at all times. (not for me in a particular situation) The logic test in UPB is the universalization, not a rationalization of the action. I get what you are saying now. You mean that (example) for the goal of avoiding prison, it would be logical to murder a witness who is testifying against you. And then you're saying that because everyone can do it (or say it) that it can be universalized. Perfectly logical but it's a misunderstanding of morality and what UPB is testing for. (See the end of my post for where I think you are going wrong) So here, both Batman and Joker would have the same goal of being good, though they might differ on what is required to achieve that goal. Batman would say that not murdering is good, and Joker might say murdering is good. Now when you try to universalize those theories (meaning apply them to everyone at all times), only one of them works. What is the opposite of raping as an action? It would have to be not raping, logically; It can have moral content because it is possible to not rape someone, and morality is concerned with what actions (and lack thereof) are possible. Morality applies where choice is available. Comas, death, insanity, or some cognitive impairment are obvious examples of where it isn't. This is where you are making the mistake. I want to be clear here and say that I didn't understand this either at first, and also assumed it was vague/silly because it couldn't possibly mean what it sounds like it means, but it does. Let me unpack it here. The goal is to be a good person, and murder is how you fulfill that goal. You are exactly correct when you suggest that the implication of this statement is that any other action besides murder would be morally evil. That's why it fails, because it is an impossible thing to achieve. Even ignoring the resist bit I mentioned above, you would eventually get tired and stop or run out of people to kill. Lest you stare at my post in bewilderment at this point, thinking that I have lost my sanity, let me quote from UPB: (Though I fear that you will consider UPB to also be crazy after this lol) Sorry for the length of that quote, but I wanted you to be sure I wasn't quoting anything out of context. What you considered to be an incorrectly-formed theory is exactly what Stefan is talking about here. (I see a few errors in his examples but not in the important parts)

Yeah I know exactly what you mean, though it's tough in this area because we're still pretty far from these ideas being mainstream. If I had the desire or skill to code I would probably be working on something bitcoin related. Maybe in the short term you can focus on something that promotes self-reliance or stronger communities. I think both of those are key in promoting freedom and peace. Sorry I can't be more specific, I'll post again if I think of something.

Yeah I tried online dating as well. Okcupid in particular. I had the same experience of vague responses, one girl kept sending me one word answers including smiley faces and so on, so I ended up carrying the whole conversation on my shoulders. I didn't realize it at the time, but now I look back and see that almost like a test. This girl was checking to see if I would respond in a way that she was familiar and comfortable with. (Is this guy ok with cutesy short messages that lack depth?) When you are feeling confused or distracted or just plain uncomfortable, I think that is a good sign that something weird is going on. On reflection, online dating seems counter intuitive. The point of it is to connect with people that share your interests but it doesn't really work because that stuff isn't that important. Whether someone likes the same music or books as you do says little about their actual personality. You can get some information based on what they write in their profile or the kinds of messages they send you, but you get so much more in person. Thanks for sharing your experience. No kidding, I don't like to think about it lol. (not that the odds are much better for you women)

EDM

Yeah it's just that you said "attachment doesn't denote attitude", which depends on your definition of attachment. Bleh it doesn't matter though, I thought you and mpah were arguing about different definitions but I was mistaken, judging by a second look at the conversation.

No it's not kind of like saying, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not free, sure, but we aren't slaves either. Maybe another word should be made up for what exists at the moment, but 'wage slavery' is clearly an attempt at manipulation through language. It riles people up because the word 'slavery' is so emotion-laden in American culture. I actually had to correct my post above because I said they don't understand what they are saying, but obviously on reflection, I recognize that it's done on purpose.

Ok now I see where the issue is. UPB says that achieving it must be possible in order to uphold the moral theory, not successful. The simple reason that rape and murder fail the morally good test is because in order for a rape or murder to occur, the other person has to not want these things to happen. Otherwise it would be consensual sex and I dunno, assisted suicide. It's not about whether it can be considered right to assault someone (anyone can label any action as "good"). It's about whether or not it can be applied (meaning put to practical use, not theoretically) universally. It can't be applied to everyone if it's not possible. So if I say for example, "In order to be a good person you must murder", then clearly that's not achievable for everyone since some people are required to resist, and so it can't be moral (it fails the prerequisite of being possible, which is what UPB tests for). Similarly, if someone is in a coma they are unable to satisfy that condition, because it's impossible to be 'good' in their case. They can't be evil either, because morality requires choice and they are incapacitated. It's strange to me because you said the same thing in your last sentence, but as far as I can tell you are contradicting what you said earlier. (unless you just meant you could label murder as good, but that's not what universalization means in the context of UPB) I just wanted to take a second and commend your writing and reasoning skills. I value good communication and so far everything that you've posted has been very clear and concise to me. I also upvoted some of your negative posts because much as I disagree with what you are saying (and dislike nihilism), you aren't trolling.

Isn't it a matter of degree? Losing choice in jobs is terrible but slavery is about having zero choice because someone is claiming to own you. Trying to call those situations comparable is ludicrous. I can understand and even agree with the sentiment of the people who talk about it, but using the phrase "wage slavery" instantly turns me off to their arguments because it's manipulative.

Yeah I can see that, various different types of the same thing. To me love is specifically the response to someone being a good person, lust is just a biological response to someone's physical features, and companionship (ie friendship) is just two people with mutual affection towards each other. It's interesting how they work together. You can lust after a friend, but liking someone is a prerequisite for loving them. You can be friends without love, or desire someone sexually without either. That's a language problem. Attachment is used more than one way: 1) To denote a feeling which binds one to something 2) To describe a sympathetic or loyal connection to another person. You can blame psychology for the second one, it was used specifically for child > parent relationships. You are thinking of the neutral definition.

That sounds like a language manipulation to me. Right has the dual meaning of good/correct, but only one of those is a moral statement. If you are saying morally good/right then the argument is refuted in UPB. The issue here is that while those are indeed logical justifications, they cannot be put forward as logical moral theories. I can't say that my goal to assault people is both enjoyable AND morally good, since I can't universalize it. Quoting from UPB: /signed It's sad that even the desire to discuss these things is so rare.

What's the difference? I mean besides the fact that contract work is more temporary. If you are talking about the downtrodden mentality of most people (worker drones), that has more to do with fucked up families than it does with the government. I agree that I would like to see labor in general be more fluid. I've never understood working for the same company for 5+ years, sounds like a prison sentence... only more boring.

Murder is premeditated killing. Evil is a state of incongruence with the standards of morality. I apologize if I'm mistaken but it seems like you are under the same premise that labmath brought up earlier in the thread: In this quote he says value judgments are internal and descriptive claims are external. However, having morality or being morally good as a value (values are subjective) is not the same as claiming something to be morally good or evil. (morality is objective, so this can't be an opinion) Does this clear anything up or am I mistaken? (if I am then again, I apologize)

Lol that's all hyperbole? You could take it more seriously then, since now I'm not even sure what you're talking about. It would be nice if people posted explanations, but to some degree that defeats the purpose of the rating system if you didn't want to get into an in depth discussion or argument over the reasons.

It's not about prices rising, it's about the value of your currency being diluted, the price change is just a side effect of that. If a business didn't raise their prices they would need to cut costs somehow or their profit margin would be affected. (and if prices go up across an entire industry, do you think people are just going to stop buying things that they need?) Imagine a game of monopoly where you found a second set of bank notes from another monopoly set and kept it for yourself (printing). Say the total amount all players had started at $1k and now it's $2k total. After doubling the amount in circulation, each bill is worth half as much as it used to be. If the price of properties was $100 a piece before you added the money, and players are aware that you just halved what their money was worth, they would double the price of their properties to $200 to compensate. The point of this manipulation is to spend the money you printed before other people realize what's going on and adjust their prices, thereby avoiding the correction and making out like a thieving bandit.

It's true by definition, a priori. Its negation is self-contradictory. If I argue that human beings are not in control of their actions, then I'm not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for yours, but in that case it would make no sense to make an argument at all. If I suggest that I have no control over my actions, then I can't choose a preferred state like truth over falsehood. (therefore the argument self-detonates) I brought up "I should control my body" for two reasons. One is because "I should have the right to control my body" and "I control my body" don't really mean the same thing. When I talk about controlling your body, I'm talking about having responsibility for your actions. Rights are supposed to be about what others, namely the government, cannot restrict you from doing. The other reason is because rights don't actually exist. I know I know, but if you sit down and actually try to define what they are, you will have quite a challenge on your hands. (I've tried, closest I can get is a legal construct) Also, I never argued control was sufficient for a moral claim, merely required. You say "the right to my body", I say "self-ownership". Potatoes, potatoes. In addition, you changed my descriptive claim to a prescriptive one. They have different meanings. When I say "Murder is evil" that doesn't contain any shoulds, it doesn't say how people ought to act on that information. How is the claim "Murder is evil" either not descriptive or not moral?

No, that's exactly right. A descriptive claim is a statement of what is and a prescriptive claim is a statement of what should be. However, the only reason morality is possible is because the claim is descriptive. You have to be in control of your body and therefore responsible for your actions otherwise right and wrong can't be applied to them. If you change "I control my body" to "I should control my body" morality ceases to exist. You also may be going under the assumption that all moral claims must be prescriptive, but that's not the case: "I should do X in order to be a good person" is an example of a (prescriptive) moral claim. "Murder is evil" is an example of a (descriptive) moral claim. Does that make sense?

ROFL I can follow the line of thinking there. It's like love = lust + friendship. I love my dog, therefore... wait a sec no, abort, ABORT! But yeah you are correct, they exist independently of each other. People use the word love many different ways but if you are going by Stefs definition (involuntary response to virtue) then it can't apply to animals since they can't be virtuous. In that case, endearment or affection are better words to describe how we feel about our pets. I like my cat because he can be funny and that makes me happy. I think that taking care of them also makes us care more about them, just from the knowledge that they would be pretty helpless in the wild. Maybe their dependency triggers an attachment similar to the one we feel for children.

Morality is not subjective. Think of it this way: I can't say whether you should go South or not, but I can certainly tell you which direction is South. (To be more clear, whether something is moral or not is descriptive. If I say building a car is evil, I'm not saying you should be evil or that you should build a car, I'm making a statement which describes your action in moral terms) What do you mean? If it's not descriptive then there can be no moral claim.

A beautiful instrumental (piano) piece by Oskar Schuster