ProfessionalTeabagger

"Better" would mean subjectively preferred or preferable given set criteria. "Moral" in this context means "adhere to a valid / preferable ethical behavior". When someone asks "Why be moral?" they are asking "Why adhere to correct moral behavior?". Other ways of putting it are "Why be good?" or "Why conform to UPB?". I don't know what you're talking about.

Those would be matters of aesthetic and personal preference.

I find that most people who ask this question tend to ignore the answer and continue asking. So I posted a new topic where I provide the actual answer. If anyone wants to discuss the answer you can go here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46332-why-be-moral-answered/

Because it's correct.

Why anything? Why answer your question? Why ask it? You don't have be moral anymore than you have to be rational or scientific. But if you don't you'll be wrong. Being "moral" won't necessarily make you happier at all. If that's not enough and you continue asking the question then you're stuck in an infinite regression and what you're really asking is "Why be moral without God / parents?". You may need to go to a theology forum.

The reason this person is not going to scientists to discuss this scientific question is because he is crazy and he knows they will reject him. He's not here to seek correction but to validate his craziness at the expense of nice people like you. Every single example of flat earther debate shows they will NEVER accept correction but simply raise new objections. There is nothing you can say to this person. Nothing. The video you kindly provided him will not be rationally considered but rather be used as an opportunity to throw arguments from incredulity / ignorance at you. Finally you will become so exhausted and frustrated and to him this will be validation. The only way to win with crazy is not to play.

I'm being hostile because the guy is either an actual retard or so fucking rude he deserves it. If this person was in my house and just said this shit as if it was normal and not the sign of a disturbed individual then I'd probably be genuinely frightened and want them out. He IS a bad person or a crazy one. Stop entertaining these cretins. Hiding behind a fake name? So anyone who doesn't provide their real name is "hiding"? Do you not understand that some people just want their actual name kept private because this is the internet and creeps like you exist on it? What has one's user name got to do with anything you absolute moron? Your posts are nothing but insults to everyone's intelligence. You have NOT found "like minded people" and that's not why you're here. There are plenty of places you can go with thousands of people discussing flat earth bullshit. There are plenty of science websites with people a hundred times more qualified to answer these questions. This is a fucking philosophy forum, not a crackpot conspiracy forum. You are here to pollute people and spout your craziness to those who you think will listen. The energy wasted on idiots like you could be used on anti-spanking or anti-state discussions. You don't belong here. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/ask-an-expert-intro http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/ask-tns/ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ Please go away. And to the actual forum members here entertaining this prick's questions, don't say I didn't tell you so.

I actually would like the flat earthers to piss off. As far as I'm concerned you're a fucking idiot and not welcome. All you're doing is making this forum look completely crackpot. If you believe your retarded and insulting scientific bald assertions then go to a science website. WTF are you doing here? Why are people being nice to these dickbrains? They are not good people. They flock to what they think are fringe websites and talk shit endlessly. Do we have time to deal with these deranged creeps on top of everything else?

If you want include such state actions and programs as crime then you have to include welfare. That would vastly increase the black crime rate.

If you leave us alone then there's no problem. Maybe we've got to talk about you indoctrinating kids.

It's enough to know there is a point. Asking the exact point is an impossible question to answer because pollution is not digital. We can measure the point approximately as being when the pollution exceeds implicitly or explicitly agreed levels.

Sarcasm is not an argument. Don't give me insinuations. Give me proof. If you are supporting initiations of force like taxation for example then you are advocating violence. You'll get down-votes for that because because the mainstream here is voluntarism. Also if you make that kind of anti-capitalist bald-assertions that James P quoted then you won't do well.

I'm very tired of hearing this stupid claim. Stefan nor anyone I know at FDR is backing Trump's candidacy.

It's mostly voluntarist.

If it's voluntary then there's no problem.

Your implication is that I believe you came here in bad faith because you don't believe in libertarianism. But that's not what I said. There's nothing absurd about asking someone to moral justify something. Isn't that part of what attorneys do in court? You invoked magic because you cannot provide a logically consistent justification for violations of the NAP. I provided all the supporting facts and definitions that my rules are being drawn from so how are my rules baseless? I can't speak for Torbald but I'm sure he has fallen victim to your persistent claims that no one is providing you definitions, explanations or making any effort. From a reading of your rebuttal-less "article" on UPB your inability to understand it is down to you, not others failure to explain it to you. What childish attitude you're talking about? I assume it differs from your own attitude so please provide me with an example of this attitude that I can't also find you doing. Again, have you gone to the call in show page? https://freedomainradio.com/callinshow/ Assuming you are not involved in some smear site or a known troll then I find it strange they've not gotten back to you. Didn't I already tell you several times that I did not use the term evil? Didn't I already explain why I used the term "wrong"? Do you just persist in the hope your opponent will become so frustrated they give up? It's being fully explained to you. Even if I'm completely wrong you cannot claim I've given no explanation. No and I already said several times that it's not just initial internal consistency. Many moral rules sound consistent until you unpack them. The real test is do they remain consistent in practice? Because it's in practice were we see what behavior the rule / justification actually involves. The comment your responding to was made in the context of asking you what YOU meant by moral. I simply put forward the general notion of what is broadly and commonly meant by moral. Here you are deliberately (or stupidly) quoting it out of context to make it look like I was putting it forward as my definitive definition. What utter sophistry. You've already been told. Evil is when someone knows something is wrong but does it anyway. Morality is a subset of UPB that concerns enforceable behavior. You did not do what I asked. You tried but you failed to understand and only gave a rule that was at best maybe internally consistent. But like I said several times, it has to be externally consistent. That's is it has to be a justification that does not collapse into logical contradiction when applied. Soundness just refers to the premises being true. Declaring the opposite of the rule (which you seem to think is "god isn't real") IS relevant and I explained why. Arbitrary declarations are not valid moral rules or justifications because they are arbitrary. Person A: Rape is justified because God says. Person B: Rape is not justified because god says. If arbitrary declarations are valid then both person A and B are both making valid moral rules. But as both are logically contradictory they cannot be valid. See? You moral justification fails. All moral justifications for NAP violations fail. I suspect you will continue to double down on your silly "but my justification was internally consistent" rebuttal despite the fact I keep rebutting it but I'm just going to keep correcting you until you at least acknowledge my argument. You misquoted me. I did not say "THE mental state is not anything to do with rape". I said " I want to sexual penetrate others who do not want to be penetrated all the time but that mental state is not anything to do with rape. "Rape is good" is another way of saying "Thou shalt rape". How can you have read UPB and not understood this? How does one "embody" rape? Rape is when you force sex on someone. Being raped is when someone is forcing sex on you. Stop saying "embody rape". It's nonsense. I said nothing about everyone being able to be "perfectly good". You criticize me for supposedly using new definitions but then constantly rephrase my words with new phrases and definitions like "perfectly good". I didn't even use the word "good" in my initial argument, never mind PERFECTLY GOOD. I've explained what I mean when I call something moral. If there's something I call moral in some context then you are free to ask me to explain it. Everyone reading this thread can see it's been explained to you. What you need to do is provide a valid justification for rape. If you can do that then you have dis-proven my case. Yeah, some rules are more obviously contradictory then others. The celibate / always have sex rule is obviously contradictory from the get go. A divine rule like "never obey my commands" is less so. The rape is good / thou shalt rape rule/ justification is only revealed to be logically contradictory when unpacked. Because moral rules have to be universal the "rape is good" rule is internally inconsistent (as rape breaks with universality). A moral statement is a statement of universally preferable behavior. Rape cannot be universally preferable behavior (for pretty obvious reasons). So saying rape is good is the same as saying "one must prefer and not prefer rape simultaneously". But it doesn't matter that much because as I keep telling you it's not only strict internal consistency that's necessary. If a rule appears internally consistent but falls into contradiction in theoretical (or actual) practice then it's not a valid rule either. I'm not sure what you mean by YOU being "done defining terms for you guys". I'm not "you guys" so i don't know about the others. But I don't think I've asked you to define many terms at all. what's actually happened is that YOU have asked for definitions and when provided them you repeatedly claim none where provided and sometimes saying they are wrong (that supposedly were not provided). Again you're just making stuff up and anyone can look at my responses to see me providing definitions over and over. If you like we'll test this and I will cut and paste the instances of me having to explain and/or define stuff. You can do the same and we'll compare. As for the first person to ask you to make a rule about rape I think you're referring to me. What I actually asked was that you provide a valid justification for rape. You still haven't done it. I don't know what you mean by "rape is just a shock tactic". If it bothers you (and I'm sure it does) you can use theft. Can you provide a valid justification for theft (one that doesn't collapse into logical contradiction)? It can be anything - To feed the poor - I want it - Because it's funny - I need to pay for my dying child's operation, etc. The point of this thread is that you wanted objective morality proved to you. I've just shown you that you cannot provide any moral justifications for violations of the NAP. They are all wrong. If no logical justifications of the NAP are possible then that means violations of the NAP cannot possibly be morally justified. It's objective. For what it's worth we can also show it in practice. Pick any violation of the NAP that exists and I can show how it is not morally justified.

All rules are subjective from a certain point of view. The rules around valid reasoning or science are subjective too but if you violate them within their respective realms you'll be wrong. I would say that's because you don't understand it but I believe it's because your initial position of someone who was just intellectually curious was bogus and you're here to throw cold water on and stir up confusion around the NAP in an attempt to relieve your anxiety about it. The NAP is simple. If you violate it you'll be unable to logically justify your behavior. The fact you couldn't even come up with a justification for rape that didn't involve invoking magic shows that. BTW what is a "cross-definition" and a "baseless rule"? Suck what up? I assume you're probably not going to respond to my previous rebuttal but could you link to your previous account and the requests you made to get on the call-in show?

Imagine being this guy.

No you can't. A welfare state could leave someone to die too so that argument fails. Secondly, why do you think an appeal to emotion is valid argumentation? Don't you think your premises and conclusion should stand on their own and not completely rely on people's sympathy for dying people? What kind of manipulator are you that you'd try to exploit people's compassion this way or try to make them appear heartless just to prop up a fallacious argument?

The human is a natural resource. If you;re only concerned with "natural resources" then why are you bringing in bottled water emergency ethics scenarios? Who decides what hurts and what doesn't? You? What resources would I be claiming to be my own? Apples? soil? Air? Water? Diseases? Risk?

No. You and everyone else already have property rights by virtue of the fact you have bodies that occupy space and contain resources. The fact that someone might get to use a resource might is unlucky for others. But that's just reality. Build a wall around a bunch of resources and property rights are not the same thing.

I'm not sure about the phrase "moral logical rule". The NAP is a principle. Sure, it COULD be referred to as a rule or even a law, but strictly speaking it's a principle. But if you want to use the term "Moral logical rules" to describe the NAP then it's a moral logical rule (as opposed to an amoral logical rule") because it's in the realm of morality. If it was scientific principle then it you might describe it as a scientific logical rule. I did not say it was an objective moral "system". I'm not necessarily objecting to this description but please be careful when adding things like this. The NAP is a principle. A principle that says that aggression is morally wrong. There's no "impenetrable mystery". I've made an strong effort to be as clear, plain spoken and UN-mysterious as I possibly can. What an insult it is to dismiss my arguments as "impenetrable mystery that is your notion of morality". Wrong refers to those moral theories / propositions / justifications / rules, etc that fail the test of logical consistency. By "moral" I assume you are referring to it in the sense of - "it is MORAL to give to charity, etc". That would be just a synonym for "good". You can keep maintaining that I've failed to define my terms but I will keep pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong. Either tell how my definitions are not valid or accept them. Do not tell me yet again that I've failed to provide you with definitions. Use "moral" in a sentence so as I can know what you're talking about. Also, please show a sentence were I used "moral" in that sense. Quote it. I have to know what sense you are using the word "moral" in order to define it or even know if I need to define it. "Moral" broadly refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, right? What is it YOU'RE talking about? How am I using NEW definitions for "objective" and "valid"? Please demonstrate. Maybe some arbitrary things CAN be valid but in the context on morality the things I mention can't. I've already explained why. I took your arbitrary declaration that rape is morally right (one ought to rape) and showed how such declarations are not valid. If you are putting forward a moral rule / justification, etc then it can't just be arbitrary because the the opposite could equally be asserted. The declarations of "one ought to rape because god said so" and "one ought NOT rape because god said so" cannot both be correct because they are contradictory. IOW the rules are not valid. They're just arbitrary subjective statements; no more valid than saying "rape is right because ofdfoikndgfngdf" " I don't know what this means. Why are the ellipses there? What are you talking about? I don't know how to respond to this rambling. The only part I understand is your request that I define "arbitrary, objective, and valid". Well the dictionary definitions will suffice. No, I already refuted this. I want to sexual penetrate others who do not want to be penetrated all the time but that mental state is not anything to do with rape. As for punching someone in the back of the head, unless you have some consent, there's a reasonable expectation that the person does not want it. I guess you MIGHT get lucky and coincidentally punch someone who happened to really want it but that's irrelevant. Rape is forcing sex on someone. The victim by definition does not want it. If they wanted it it would not be rape. FFS. Rapist = Forces sex on someone. Rape victim = does not want the sex that is being forced on them. Get it? A rule that says it is right to rape is not valid because it can't be followed. It's like a rule that says "thou shalt steal". With every "stealing" there is necessarily a "stolen from". So in order to follow the rule one would have to want (BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULE) to steal and want to be stolen from. But it is not logically possible to want to be stolen from. It's an illogical rule when applied to reality. Therefore it's not a valid moral rule. It's the same with rape. You have not met my challenge or even given an answer I haven't heard many times before from most others. You need to provide a valid moral justification for rape. All you did was say "God says rape is good". That's utterly retarded. Follow it or don't follow it. If you violate it you will be wrong and as such unable to justify your actions. It's like asking "I want someone, anyone to explain how the scientific method is an objective rule of science we ought to follow". Follow it or don't follow it but if you don't you'll be wrong. You ask why I think everyone should be able to follow the moral rule. That's because if you can't follow the rule then it's not a valid rule is it? If I make moral rule that says "everyone should have daily sex and be permanently celibate" then people can't possibly follow the rule. It's not a valid rule. If as you claim you think your rules meet my standard (even though you claim not to understand my standard because I've apparently failed to define my terms) then you don't understand my standard. You say you accepted his invitation with multiple posts on this forum. That's pretty strange because your profile says you've only been here since December. So I assume this is a new account you've opened, right? Could you link me to your other account and your attempt to contact on the forum and I'll try to help? Also did you go to the call-in show page? I don't care that you are flabbergasted that I would dare ask why you ask ME to define "good". I gave you a reason. Don't give me some nonsense about me asking you to define morality just because I ask why I have to define "good". That's a red herring. I kept the terms simple and did not use the words "good" or "evil". You brought them in and it was tiresome for me to have to define it when I didn't even know in what sense you were using it in. I politely asked you what you meant and also why I HAD to define it, given that it was YOU who kept using it. I didn't ask you to play any game and I defined my terms. How are you being "shit on"? I've been nothing but polite. How do I come up with "a new word" every time you "pounce"? "Pounce"? Really? WTF are you talking about? Why do you feel the need to "pounce"? LOL. Really, we MUST? Is that a moral rule or something? It's often the case that the people who fight most strongly agianst UPB are also the most adamant when it comes to telling people what they OUGHT to do. Sorry but I've defined my terms clearly AND argued from first principles. Moral rules/ justifications / theories that do not pass the test of logical consistency are not valid. Violations of the nap do not pass such a test and so cannot be morally justified. Rape, murder, assault and theft cannot be morally justified. Until you come up with a valid justification for such violations then thatt's an objective fact.

I did not claim that evil is necessary to argue that violations of the NAP are evil. I have explained my words. Of course I won't "take your word for it". Violations of the NAP can be wrong but the person doing it may not necessarily be evil. People violate the NAP all the time without even knowing they are doing it. As I explained, evil is when you know something is wrong but do it anyway. Let's say spanking is objectively morally wrong. It would be morally wrong regardless of what someone thought. So a parent who genuinely believed it was right would be wrong but not necessarily evil. Get it? I'm not sure that factual determinations are irrelevant but even if we accept that, your rule from god is an still arbitrary declaration. Arbitrary declarations are not objective or valid. They are subjective and as such have no standard by which they can be proven right or wrong. One can just assert the opposite and it would be equally as valid. It's an appeal to magic (anti-logic). In fact it's not surprising you WENT for a divine rule first. I've found many people tend to do this when asked the same question. People have always turned to the supernatural / magic to justify their clearly illegitimate moral claims / rights. The divine right of kings. It is God's will. And so on. I think that's because they instinctively know there's no valid justification so they HAVE to turn to magic. But that's an aside. Why are you confused about what I mean by "wrong"? In the context of morality, wrong refers to those moral justifications / propositions / theories that fail the test of logical consistency (I think I already stated this). I don't just mean internal consistency. I mean consistency when applied. So if you posit a moral rule that leads to logical inconsistency in reality then that rule cannot be correct; IOW, wrong. First, "wanting to sexually penetrate others", is not rape. It would be wanting to penetrate others who you know do not want it". See? You are describing only the action. In reality one cannot hold that rape is right because if it is right then it is right that THEY be raped (such rules must be universal if they are to be valid). A moral rule that you must resist is not logical. Second, it's not that they would need to want their own rape. Remember, moral rules do not HAVE to be followed. There's a choice so I'm not saying anyone HAS to want anything in actually. It's in the rule itself. In order to follow the rule they would have to accept being raped because rape is a moral good (right, what one ought to do, correct action, etc). It is a rule that is logically impossible to follow. Therefore it's not valid. Again, everyone must able to follow the rule in theory. If you make a rule that is logically impossible to follow then that rule is not valid. Your justifications for rape logically fail. They obviously cannot be followed. It is impossible for you to provide any valid moral justification for rape that does not collapse into logical contradiction. "that is coming out of the ultimate clusterfuck of all time, the UPB text." Rather than insult the text you can go debate it with Stef anytime you want. https://freedomainradio.com/callinshow/ Sorry but in "in a world where it is impossible to posit an objective rule that rape is good" this would obviously show that no such justification for rape is possible. Because THAT's what that means. I assumed you meant good in the sense of right /justified,etc. YOU used the word "good" in this context. Why are you asking ME to define it? It's frustrating that even when I demonstrably defined something like "evil" (even though I didn't initially use the word) you brazenly declare I didn't define it. You can argue that my definition is not valid or whatever but don't tell me I didn't provide one.

I didn't just jump to the conclusion like you said. I gave a reason for it. I didn't say that evil is not necessary to make an argument that a violation of the NAP is evil. I said evil is not necessary to make the argument that the NAP is objective and that violations of it are wrong. I also explained what I meant by wrong in the context of morality. Wrong refers to those moral theories/ propositions / justifications that logically fail (and may fail in other ways but logic is enough for now). It's not specifically the battering of someone that is wrong. That action in and of itself can't be right or wrong. It's assault that's wrong. IOW, is the battering assault or defense? If it it assault then it cannot be justified (because all moral justifications collapse into contradiction). If it's defense then it CAN be justified. That's an objective difference in the underlying theories / justifications in these behaviors. I'm assuming the divine rule was not actually from God but from a human claiming it was from God. As such all it is is an arbitrary declaration. Another person can also make a similar declaration that claims the opposite. It's meaningless. It's not a valid justification. I'm not positing any law that requires man to want the good. If you say rape is morally good then you're saying everyone should rape and accept being raped (what they happen to want is not the issue). With every rape comes a being raped. You can't accept one without the other. So in order to accept the moral rule then you'd have to accept being raped. But as being raped by definition means not accepting it then the moral rule is logically impossible to follow. Logically impossible rules are not valid. So you have provided no valid justification for rape. They quickly fall into logical contradiction. Well it would prove that no valid justification for rape is possible. Therefore anyone who rapes does so knowing their behavior can have no valid moral justification. It's quite literally immoral. That's a demonstrable objective difference between acts of aggression and acts of non-aggression. The aggressive acts cannot be justified. The non-aggressive acts can.