dsayers

I hear you. I was checking out their videos at one point and just couldn't stand those things either, so I stopped. I think this one crossed my radar as a youtube suggestion.

Thank you for your consideration. Objective morality is such a beautiful thing because it makes so many seemingly challenging things VERY simple indeed My case: Humans can reason. That is they can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore they own themselves. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the four behaviors a human can engage in that are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. NAP is shorthand for "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder." The test: In order to have a moral consideration, a behavior must first be voluntary. For example, a muscle spasm is not voluntary. Then, it must be binding upon another moral actor. For example, if I sit down on my couch, this does not directly impact anybody else. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are amoral (no moral component). If a behavior has a moral component, the difference is based on consent. For example, borrowing (consent; moral) is mechanically identical to theft (no consent; immoral). Does this help?

If they are free to decline, it is not binding upon them.

Humans are overarchingly K. However, neither r nor K is absolute, nor eternal. A person can demonstrate mostly r/K traits, yet also demonstrate other traits.

It is true that you cannot derive an ought from an is without an if. You have to be careful when trying to apply this to morality. In any moral analysis, internal consistency is a given. It is the implied if. So you can't say "you ought to steal" because the proposition of theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Whereas "you ought to change the oil in your car" isn't internally inconsistent. Does that help?

It cannot seem that way since I've been clear that consent is paramount, and have repeatedly rejected that control is the factor of consideration.

The thing you have to look at in terms of moral consideration is whether the behavior is voluntary, whether it is binding upon others, and if they have given consent. If it's not binding on others, then there is no moral consideration. However, both murder and euthanasia are binding upon another, so neither form of these mechanically identical behaviors could be classified as having no moral consideration (amoral; aesthetic). The difference is in the presence of consent (wanted/unwanted).

Baylor, with all due respect, I think you're again using language that only serves to conceal abuse. A person can smile and this is non-verbal communication. Babies learn to do this almost immediately because it's all they have. We're not talking about somebody trying to communicate a preference for chili cheese fries. This human being is willing to harm/mutilate themselves. It doesn't matter whether they have words or not (though I think a strong case can be made for non-verbal at 2 being indicative of trauma). What matters is that they're not smiling and that their efforts at communication is not a zero sum game. She is actively harming herself and she WILL escalate until somebody demonstrates that they are listening.

In the realm of morality, consent is the only question of relevance.

I didn't tell you anything. I was honest about my experience. Also, your opening post was talking to people about what they're doing without asking questions. So why do you think you are exempt from a standard you would put forth for somebody else as if they're bound to it?

When I want to communicate something, I use my words. This is an option to me because even if somebody doesn't love me, they have enough respect for me as a person that using my words has the realistic expectation that what I'm communicating will at least be received. This girl is communicating in this way because she feels that using words would be insufficient. How did she arrive at that conclusion? It's such a horrifying reality to consider let alone accept that I am certain that short a brain tumor, this would have to be a reality that was inflicted upon her. Neglect is a form of abuse, and a particularly powerful one for a tiny, defenseless, not-there-by-choice, developing organism. I really hope somebody will help her to escape her living nightmare.

Torero, much like this thread began, you have made an enormous claim here. You were challenged to substantiate it, and you are moving forward as if no challenge was made. For me, anything you've said beyond this that doesn't address this isn't worth my time.

I don't think you realize that "philosophizing" is how you get rid of the tyrannical system. If the enforcer class stood up right now and said to the ruling class, "No, we reject your claim that we exist in a different, opposing moral category," we'd have peace RIGHT NOW and without any bloodshed. The problem is that the enforcer class DOES accept that claim as the result of being abused as children. Complete with fairy tales about nationalism, duty, patriotism, etc. Revealing the gun in the room, thinking rationally from first principles, analyzing WHY people fall for these things in the first place and/or reject the truth as a result, and most importantly convincing parents to not aggress against their children does so much to end human aggression. I think it's irresponsible to be anxious in the moment to the point of telling the people who are saving the world that it's not enough just because you're anxious that the results can't be enjoyed right this second.

Hey, Baylor. This is a difficult situation to be in, and I really appreciate you seeking help for this. So appreciative that I would like to try and help first by providing some clarity. What you are referring to is not a habit at all. It's a form of communication. The child is literally telling anybody who will take notice "this is my experience." Thankfully, you have listened. Though this places you in an enormously difficult position. As Matthew M pointed out, "breaking the habit" will only serve to make those in her presence more comfortable. I suspect that erasing her for the preferences of others is an accurate description of whatever has happened that led to this form of communication. Which would mean that breaking her of this habit would be amplifying her trauma. The opposite of what she so desperately needs. I cannot tell you what to do. But I think the child needs intervention. The kind her parents cannot say no to I'm afraid. One day, we will live in a peaceful world where we can correct for this with relative ease. However, in the world we have, this child is responding to the initiation of the use of force, so using force to protect her would not be immoral. Please call Child Protective Services. This girl still has time to develop empathy and a personality that wasn't born of violence.

Prove it. Also, I think you "lose" the moment your point of origin for comparison is the State. Cancer is less harmful than the State, but that doesn't mean we should call it good.

The consistency of matter and energy makes life much easier. Imagine trying to sleep in a world where gravity reversed spontaneously. So it makes sense that an infant would find comfort and safety in the consistency of their brand new world. This is entirely of the parents' creation. So while a parent could provide that consistency, they could also provide (or not) an object. Once the child is old enough to be reasoned with, you can talk with them about attachment to objects and then they can decide how "necessary" it is to need a certain object to fall asleep with or find comfort in. Does that make sense?

Hmmm... I think the challenge still lies in the fact that a bad methodology or problematic interpretation has no bearing on what actually IS. If this is true, then you can in fact have an is without an ought. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Matter represents the IS while consciousness is a requisite for determining an ought. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you MUST be able to have an is without an ought, since matter precedes consciousness. Does that make sense?

I agree with this. You cannot get an ought from an is... without an if.

The difference between stealing and not is consent. Consent cannot be implied, and must be secured in advance. "not minding" is a consideration that comes AFTER the behavior in question, and therefore not the same thing as consent. In the scenario of a paper clip, not minding is the acknowledgement that damages are such that the pursuit of restitution would not be a desirable use of one's time. There is such a thing as a reasonable expectation of consent. Say you find somebody passed out in the middle of the road. It is reasonable to expect that if they could give consent, they would. As such, you could take command of their body by picking them up and getting them out of harm's way. Even if it was a failed suicide attempt, since motorists didn't consent to the horror of almost killing somebody and/or the damage to their car. Does that help at all?

Where coercion is present, consent cannot be.

Great point. The topic is framed as if the people taking the children away are the ones violating property rights, not the parents. As if the parents own the children, so abusing them isn't a violation, while taking them away would be. That's pretty gross actually.

Truth is preferable to falsehood is axiomatic despite being stated as if it were subjective. Tea leaves? So... don't challenge your position, lest ye dive into absurdity? There is no ought in the measurement of the speed of a car. If you use a methodology that arrives at an incorrect answer, this has no bearing on the speed the car IS traveling at. Show me, don't tell me. The label of "moral relativism," when undefined by the person introducing the label as a basis for comparison (you), is imprecise as it is meant to draw upon people's prior understanding instead of establishing a baseline (defining your terms). "label" being a subset of "language" doesn't mean it is precise. It is curious that somebody who would put forth the concept of "superior ideas" as valid (while undefined) would reject the same concept when it served to challenge him to refine the method by which he is trying to communicate.

Thanks, Residing. I assumed by its name that the lack of universality was likely its fundamental flaw.

Stefan HAS spoken for himself and shirgall's post encapsulates what he has said. I for one am perfectly comfortable with Stef spending his time and effort growing the show and the value it provides to others rather than repeating himself. Especially when more astute listeners like shirgall are perfectly capable of answering the question accurately. Does that make sense?

@staff: Please alter the title to "how much irrationality and manipulation can I fit into a single post?" Somebody who inflicts (irrational) conclusions onto their child is not an "all-around good parent." There is no "general hatred of Christianity" "here." Rational thinkers accept that irrationality is antithetical to rational discourse. People who want peace and freedom accept that child abuse is antithetical. Moral people accept that any violation of property rights is immoral. Categorizing these as "hatred" makes it sound as if it is a preference as opposed to the rational conclusion that "religion is child abuse" is.