Will Torbald

Sentience is valuable, ok, let's roll with that. Also, sentience is valuable, but it can't be measured how much value it has. So two people with sentience are equally valuable in the eyes of each other. What does it mean for a sentience to attack another sentience? It would mean that sentience A deems itself more valuable than sentience B. In this way, we'd say that an aggression "devalues" people, and that devaluing people is immoral since you are holding yourself valuable, but another sentience less valuable than you. This would only work if all sentience is equally valuable to each other. Do you agree with that?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. If we assign a T value to an axiom it is meaningless. Is the opposite true? To say that axioms are false is meaningful? Meaningless to whom, by the way? Your mathematical example would have been interesting if it used math without real numbers where an empirical test with grouping two pairs of chairs together lead to the magical trasformation of the two pairs of chairs into a group of four chairs. I think I can point a finger to that. The numbers and symbols are just ways of representing that experiment.

I'm saying that comparing the value of two things, and declaring which is more valuable than the other, is an opinion because you haven't provided an objective measure. By subjective value I mean that it only exists in people's minds, not outside them. When making moral judgements you are comparing what's moral vs what's immoral, and you're using a value scale - I'm asking what determines that value. You gave me sentience.

Okay, so that only means that value is subjective. If your morality is sitting on top of subjetivity, it can't be considered objective or universal. I consider this to still be on the same level as an opinion. It's just what you value, what you think has no value, what you think is worth more, and so on. Just another personal opinion.

Well, unless you have a universal definition of value you can't have a universal definition of morality based on value. If your morality is not universal it's just an opinion.

I don't know, can you prove that human life as value? We have bias, as we are human, but would an alien from space think of us with value? A sufficiently advanced alien species could look at us like we look at chickens. We don't think the life of a moss growing on a rock, a snail, a jellyfish, or a tuna has any significant value - but they are all carbon based cellular life forms like us. Without human bias, humans are just another animal. So, can you prove that human life has any objective empirical value outside of the perspective of a human?

There's the lies we tell ourselves, and the lies we tell others. The person deceiving others is gaining something. Like a politician, or priest. Telling lies to others always pays off as long as you don't get caught. What your coworker said is categorically true. You can't be certain of the past of other people if you haven't been there or have evidence. It's like the show Dexter where normal people don't suspect him. However paranoid it sounds, it's just true. But the problem is going to Neptune with that idea and becoming a conspiracy theorist or a pathologically paranoid person who is afraid of everyone. At one point you just have to hope for the best with the knowledge you have. I don't know any specific falsehood you have, I'm just going by the signs. You're confident in your mind and looking at the falsehoods of others, so that means you have reached a plateu of evolution and feel better looking at others than at yourself. When that happens a person no longer evolves their mind, and in turn switches their attention outward and sees all the flaws and falsehoods of everyone else. So I was curious, were you done with your self knowledge? The Dawkins Scale is a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute certainty of a god, and 7 is absolute certainty of the non existence of a god. Philosophically, a self contradicting being has 0% probability of existing, so this will leave a 7 in the scale - yet even other rational people prefer to say they are a 6 or a 6.5 without fully committing to the idea. Even Dawkins says he doesn't reach a 7. Now, this isn't only about god, it's an example, but the same scale applied to any knowledge given to probability and certainty applies. How many 7's and 1's do you have? What are you certain is and isn't? Finally, your observation on morality is in contrast to the morality advocated here which is a rational proof of universal ethics, UPB, where it explains why the "might makes right" morality of the jungle is irrational. This would be an example of an area where falsehood could be eliminated, I'd say.

Flaw in the case: That creates two different moral categories for relationships between people. One is between families, and the rest. I've seen you make the case elsewhere that this is something you oppose, multiple categories of morality, and to me this is one. That obligation you speak of is only aesthetical. A newborn child can be taken care of by other people, adoption, foster care, wolves, and so on. It is cruel for a parent to neglect a child, but it is not the initiation of force. No one is obligated to positively do anything, morally. Only to not perform aggression on others. Yes. But to assume that nobody else would feed a baby if the mother doesn't feed it in a real world scenario is to create fringe worlds where a baby is alone without no one to take care of it out of pity. A mother putting a baby in a hole where no one can find it and have it die of hunger is already committing assault towards it. A mother who is just going to let a baby die after pregancy is either deranged, or forced to have a pregnancy without allowing her to abort. So bubble cases like the one you give don't pass the scrutiny of the reasons why someone would do that in the first place.

You're young and you don't have to commit yourself if you're not certain. Just from this list I can tell she is never going to change. She will always be sedentary, non travelling, shy, anxious, and all her negatives. It is not efficient to try to change people. Being nice and funny aren't particular positives exclusive to herself, you know what I mean? A PPE is something only that person can provide to you that would be rare to find from someone else, and you're not describing her that way.

Because it maximises their chances of survival and reproduction in a society built on lies. In a world that's immoral, being immoral gives you higher returns. But I wonder though, are you sure you have eliminated all falsehood from your mind? Have you transformed all the 99% probabilities of certainties into 100% truths? I'm just curious, but it could also be helpful to you.

Yes, it would be righteous. Luckily, I know people aren't that monumentally mentally impaired to agree to such agreement in the real world.

If you were a kid, and could choose to have her as your mother, would you choose her? I mean positively choosing her. Not a process of elimination, not a "there's no one else" kind of deal. Look at her from the eyes of a child, and make a choice.

The problem with violence is not what effect it has. That is called consequentialism, when you judge things by their consequences. We reject the validity of that system, and focus on first principles of rationality. If ostracism is just as effective as violence, but has no immoral qualities to it, then it is righteous to use ostracism instead of violence even if they are equally powerful. Ostracism could even be more powerful than violence, and it would still be advocated as a method of non aggressive peer pressure.

"These disgusting animals" "Bad news as good news" "I hope the country devolves into chaos" And you are reprimending me for being passive aggressive when he was being actively aggressive. You know, I was being sarcastic and cynical when I replied to his comments, I take that. I take the hits for low reputation that I deserve, I get it. I won't apologize for what I said passively aggressively against someone actively aggressive. Later on the effect I intended with that tactic payed off, and we mellowed out, and he realized something new about himself - that he was playing karma police on everyone else - and I was very courteous with that vulnerability. We cool, I'm cool with that, and it's all ok.

We could keep moving the goalposts all day. But what if and what if and what if and what if? I don't know. When it comes to a real problem in the real world where I can contribute I'll think about it.

Pointing out the double standards in his comments is constructive criticism. Everybody is horrible is a phrase that includes himself, and me. His reasons to say that everybody is horrible also include him. He is either being self destructive, or having cognitive dissonance, and both are worth stopping.

Just build around that one house, it's not that difficult.

Neglect is not an inflicted behavior, nor is it a violent action. It is cruel to not know, but since it isn't a positive action, I cannot say it is immoral. It is rather aesthetically negative, if not the most aesthetically negative thing to do to have ignorance of the problems of your child - but since the original post explicitely asked for "a moral, ethical answer" that's what I make of it. The boy who molested her is completely immoral and an unethical abuser. The mother who didn't know is completely aesthetically negative and a passive abuser. If I am wrong about any of this, I would like to hear reasonable proof of my mistake as I believe this is very serious and useful to have outmost clarity on what is and isn't ethical.

It's cool. It really is draining, as I've been there too. When you realize why your energy is low, and what attitudes are causing it, that's all that matters when it comes to overcoming a bad day's night out. You already know what to do after that, and it gets better.

That's really interesting. You define as weakness what I see as hatred. Yes, you were sad, but have you taken it back? Do you really regret it? You're countering my comment, completely understandably as I know I am not being friendly, but you're not taking a step back to admit that saying that "serves them right" is not in any way a decent thing to say about victims of violence. Would you say it to the face to a parent who lost a child in a massive shooting? Or a terrorist bomb? That it serves him for being a statist? For being a person indoctrinated as a child by every corner of his environment, from parents to school to church to wave tiny flags at a building? How many people manage to break free of the matrix through peaceful and reasonable arguments against everything they've been told is right and moral? Very few, very little. At the very least they become libertarians or conservatives. I'm having compassion for you right now by telling you that I won't support that path. That I don't lean for people who don't take back their darkness. Sadness is not regret. Hatred is not weakness.

Your problem isn't unique in any way, but you feel comfortable looking for sympathy. So many other places, cities, countries are in worst shape than Austin, TX right now. So many other people with problems much worse than a bad day and misanthropy. Serves them right? Happy of the murders, rapes, terrorism, riots in the news? I'm not going to feel sympathy for someone who glees on this.

Okay, so you think that when people are lied to, it is their own fault. That's all there is to it in the end.

Everybody is horrible except you. You never make jerk-bag comments, never make passive aggressive comments, would never act passive aggressively, always have perfect conversation skills, curious about everything, never pretend any emotion or image. Sounds like you're a perfect person in an imperfect world. To hell with them, am I right?

If people want something, they'll do it. If people don't want NAWAPA voluntarily, with win-win negotiations between communities, and they can find other solutions - they just won't. It still doesn't mean people will die if the nanny state doesn't spoon feed them.

The moral argument is whether a person is responsible for being lied to, not whether someone fails as a parent or not. I really don't have the energy to defend her mother, or to condemn her mother. Are you going to blame yourself when someone deceives you? Are you going to tell another person that being lied to is their fault because if they had been nicer it wouldn't have happened? If the mother is guilty, every person who has been lied to, or had truth kept from themselves, is guilty of their own deception.