Deuteronomy 13:6-11

[G.T.]

If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.

That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.

Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.

If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

 

[SweetSue92]

It absolutely did. Humans have very large brains--that supposedly "evolved". Believe me, women suffer when those heads start pressing down from the inside AND when giving birth. More importantly, human babies have to be born dreadfully early and helpless when compared to other species because of our big brains.

So we're faulty from the outset. Why then should anyone care if we go extinct?

In a godless world, why should anyone?

GT?

Basic instincts.

Plus, introduce sentience <self awareness and intelligence> into a species, and it can begin to recognize the sources of pleasure and pain and therefore assign VALUE to LIFE.

Ive done it myself. I have no God belief, but I value my life.

What is value in a godless universe?

The same thing it is in a Universe with a God. The importance, worth or usefulness of something.

It is not even close to the same. Your life may be useful to other humans, but so what? What is important? What is worth?

You "sit on God's lap to smack His face" when you invoke these things. You are born, you want to live because you have been gifted with that instinct, you die. So what? Why is your life more valuable than that of a mushroom?

Your assertions dont mean much to me, rationally. Theyre unjustified.

I can justify my value by merely questioning those that love me. I can also value my own life, as it brings me joy and so thats what gives it worth to me.

If there was some everlasting sky existence in some other realm after this one, it devalues this Earth-life in the sense that its not all that Id have...its merely temporary. I dont live my life that way, I think its ridiculous and cheapens things that I cherish.

You're invoking rationalism but then contradicting it in the same post. If your life has objective, rational value than that value exists across all time and places. If not, then you're just comparing ice cream flavors, basically--you're polling opinions.

The fact is that you cannot assert that your life has any intrinsic worth from your worldview. You can FEEL it has worth; you can WANT it to have worth. You can poll your kids, your dog, or the mushrooms in your backyard to see if it has worth. But it doesn't matter. You, me, all of us are "molecules in motion"--we are all essentially worthless. You have no RATIONAL case for your worthiness.

 

[SweetSue92]

Whether the everlasting sky daddy exists or not your life here is only temporary.

So your experiences here literally have no value if you believe those memories cease when you cease to exist.

Whereas if one believes those memories continue to exist for eternity then the value of the choices you make become even more important and valuable.

You dont get to tell me what I value...or anyone who happens to value me values. So, mo0t.

I wasn’t telling you the value you place on it.

I am telling you that compared to memories existing forever memories which cease have no value.

You can only value your memories until you die. By your own logic those memories will have no value to you after your death.

Whereas I believe all the things we did that were good and bad will last forever so they have more value because they will have to be lived with forever.

I didnt assert value after I die, I asserted greater value while Im living. And by value, only I can determine what I value, how I decide to assess value and how much value I give any certain thing.

So pretty much your Nunnish opinion of everlasting fairytales is meaningless to how much value I place on the here and now. To me, it's everything. Youre free to disagree, as value is mostly subjective, but youre not free to assert yours unto mine and it's gross to even make an attempt.

And I am asking you what value your experiences have to you after you die. Because that’s what we are comparing.

Your good name only has value to you while you are living. My good name has value to me for eternity.

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

 

[G.T.]

Basic instincts.

Plus, introduce sentience <self awareness and intelligence> into a species, and it can begin to recognize the sources of pleasure and pain and therefore assign VALUE to LIFE.

Ive done it myself. I have no God belief, but I value my life.

What is value in a godless universe?

The same thing it is in a Universe with a God. The importance, worth or usefulness of something.

It is not even close to the same. Your life may be useful to other humans, but so what? What is important? What is worth?

You "sit on God's lap to smack His face" when you invoke these things. You are born, you want to live because you have been gifted with that instinct, you die. So what? Why is your life more valuable than that of a mushroom?

Your assertions dont mean much to me, rationally. Theyre unjustified.

I can justify my value by merely questioning those that love me. I can also value my own life, as it brings me joy and so thats what gives it worth to me.

If there was some everlasting sky existence in some other realm after this one, it devalues this Earth-life in the sense that its not all that Id have...its merely temporary. I dont live my life that way, I think its ridiculous and cheapens things that I cherish.

You're invoking rationalism but then contradicting it in the same post. If your life has objective, rational value than that value exists across all time and places. If not, then you're just comparing ice cream flavors, basically--you're polling opinions.

The fact is that you cannot assert that your life has any intrinsic worth from your worldview. You can FEEL it has worth; you can WANT it to have worth. You can poll your kids, your dog, or the mushrooms in your backyard to see if it has worth. But it doesn't matter. You, me, all of us are "molecules in motion"--we are all essentially worthless. You have no RATIONAL case for your worthiness.

value is subjective, i never said differently. Also, rationality can be used for literally anything, so to say that one shouldnt..or couldnt...invoke it when determining value is just plain fucking stupid.

 

[G.T.]

You dont get to tell me what I value...or anyone who happens to value me values. So, mo0t.

I wasn’t telling you the value you place on it.

I am telling you that compared to memories existing forever memories which cease have no value.

You can only value your memories until you die. By your own logic those memories will have no value to you after your death.

Whereas I believe all the things we did that were good and bad will last forever so they have more value because they will have to be lived with forever.

I didnt assert value after I die, I asserted greater value while Im living. And by value, only I can determine what I value, how I decide to assess value and how much value I give any certain thing.

So pretty much your Nunnish opinion of everlasting fairytales is meaningless to how much value I place on the here and now. To me, it's everything. Youre free to disagree, as value is mostly subjective, but youre not free to assert yours unto mine and it's gross to even make an attempt.

And I am asking you what value your experiences have to you after you die. Because that’s what we are comparing.

Your good name only has value to you while you are living. My good name has value to me for eternity.

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

 

[ding]

Right. You can’t fathom what I am talking about because you can’t wrap your mind around anything that you don’t believe. You won’t even consider anything else. It’s obvious.

Good ding, tell the world! And have a nickel. See which one gets ya across the Country on a greyhound faster in 1963

I’m pretty good right now. But thanks anyway.

Every time (hah pun intended) that I realize that I'm a time traveler, it makes my imagination go wild with possibilities.

Weird things happen, too - like the fact that we never experience the present because of the micro seconds that it takes for our sense to receive stimuli after they happen...puts me on a bus to 1953 but then when I'm present IN 1953 Im not even experiencing the present.

Crack at 11.

I prefer to live in the present.

In one's experience...its either always the present or never the present..depending on the time-scale one uses.

I believe that most people don’t really live in the present. Which is a real shame.

 

[ding]

That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.

Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.

If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

Same difference. There is more than one definition for the word argument.

 

[ding]

I wasn’t telling you the value you place on it.

I am telling you that compared to memories existing forever memories which cease have no value.

You can only value your memories until you die. By your own logic those memories will have no value to you after your death.

Whereas I believe all the things we did that were good and bad will last forever so they have more value because they will have to be lived with forever.

I didnt assert value after I die, I asserted greater value while Im living. And by value, only I can determine what I value, how I decide to assess value and how much value I give any certain thing.

So pretty much your Nunnish opinion of everlasting fairytales is meaningless to how much value I place on the here and now. To me, it's everything. Youre free to disagree, as value is mostly subjective, but youre not free to assert yours unto mine and it's gross to even make an attempt.

And I am asking you what value your experiences have to you after you die. Because that’s what we are comparing.

Your good name only has value to you while you are living. My good name has value to me for eternity.

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

Maybe it’s because you don’t have a God belief that you so easily and quickly judge the person instead of the behavior.

 

[ding]

If that is the case, then morality can only be applied retrospectively.

That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.

Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.

If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

You can’t measure or determine whether something is immoral or not based on suffering.

Furthermore, one need not rationalize their behaviors as moral ever. In fact, that is most people’s biggest mistake.

It is far far better to admit that what one did isn’t moral and to try to do better the next time than it is to rationalize one’s behaviors as good and just.

 

[G.T.]

I didnt assert value after I die, I asserted greater value while Im living. And by value, only I can determine what I value, how I decide to assess value and how much value I give any certain thing.

So pretty much your Nunnish opinion of everlasting fairytales is meaningless to how much value I place on the here and now. To me, it's everything. Youre free to disagree, as value is mostly subjective, but youre not free to assert yours unto mine and it's gross to even make an attempt.

And I am asking you what value your experiences have to you after you die. Because that’s what we are comparing.

Your good name only has value to you while you are living. My good name has value to me for eternity.

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

Maybe it’s because you don’t have a God belief that you so easily and quickly judge the person instead of the behavior.

To me, part of "the person" is "their behavior," I don't have trouble with forgiving people in this regard. It's also not really Ding on the internet's business.

 

[ding]

And I am asking you what value your experiences have to you after you die. Because that’s what we are comparing.

Your good name only has value to you while you are living. My good name has value to me for eternity.

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

Maybe it’s because you don’t have a God belief that you so easily and quickly judge the person instead of the behavior.

To me, part of "the person" is "their behavior," I don't have trouble with forgiving people in this regard. It's also not really Ding on the internet's business.

Honest men can lie. Courageous men can do cowardly things. Honorable men can break promises.

The question isn’t whether you can forgive them, the question has always been can you fairly judge them in the first place.

You treat people how you see them. You treat people you don’t like more harshly than you treat others that you do like. You cut more slack than you should to yourself and the ones you do like.

For instance you have no problem challenging the statements of others but you have a problem with others (at least certain ones) challenging you.

Your statement that it’s not ding’s business to comment on your posts being a perfect example.

 

[G.T.]

My experiences mean more to me now than if I die and continue on. Youre free to disagree with that. but its not up for debate. Its personal opinion.

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

Maybe it’s because you don’t have a God belief that you so easily and quickly judge the person instead of the behavior.

To me, part of "the person" is "their behavior," I don't have trouble with forgiving people in this regard. It's also not really Ding on the internet's business.

Honest men can lie. Courageous men can do cowardly things. Honorable men can break promises.

The question isn’t whether you can forgive them, the question has always been can you fairly judge them in the first place.

You treat people how you see them. You treat people you don’t like more harshly than you treat others that you do like. You cut more slack than you should to yourself and the ones you do like.

For instance you have no problem challenging the statements of others but you have a problem with others (at least certain ones) challenging you.

Your statement that it’s not ding’s business to comment on your posts being a perfect example.

I'll file your assessment right where it belongs, Ding.

 

[ding]

Again, just as I said--personal opinion. Ice cream flavors. Great. So just don't invoke objective rationalism, because there is none.

Your life, mushrooms, amoebas, worms. Ice cream flavors.

YOUR life, maybe.

You dont get to decide value for others. Maybe thats why this whole value thing triggers you. Dont be so insecure, just because I dont have a God belief doesnt mean that I dont value humans over x, y, z. That might be what YOUR ultimate conclusion would be, but mine is up to me. VALUE is subjective, BY DEFINITION

Maybe it’s because you don’t have a God belief that you so easily and quickly judge the person instead of the behavior.

To me, part of "the person" is "their behavior," I don't have trouble with forgiving people in this regard. It's also not really Ding on the internet's business.

Honest men can lie. Courageous men can do cowardly things. Honorable men can break promises.

The question isn’t whether you can forgive them, the question has always been can you fairly judge them in the first place.

You treat people how you see them. You treat people you don’t like more harshly than you treat others that you do like. You cut more slack than you should to yourself and the ones you do like.

For instance you have no problem challenging the statements of others but you have a problem with others (at least certain ones) challenging you.

Your statement that it’s not ding’s business to comment on your posts being a perfect example.

I'll file your assessment right where it belongs, Ding.

Your call.

 

[diver52]

That doesn't even make any sense. Humans have the ability to conceptualize the future effects of future causes, based on past effects of past causes.

Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.

If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

 

[G.T.]

Conceptualizing is not the same thing as knowing. We do indeed make up stories in our heads, but that does not mean the stories are true. If I make a decision based upon what I think will cause the least suffering and in fact causes more suffering, then it was an immoral decision. If I make a decision that was intended to cause more suffering and in fact caused less, then it was a moral decision.

If morality is cause and effect, then intent is no longer in the equation. Morality is simply an uncontrolled sequence of events that can only be evaluated after the fact.

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

Im sorry. I addressed this in my previous post that you only gave a 1 sentence answer to.

2 plus 2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow.

A nuclear bomb is going to destroy x-area of earth, measurable by scientific calculation.

Light will travel at the same speed, its a constant.

All this weird talk about how we cannot objectively evaluate the future effects of causes is non-sensical...the laws of logic(as I described in the previous post) already answer this objection.

If you touch 500degrees bare-skinned, you will be burned. You dont need to touch it to objectively determine that.

if i put a stick of dynamite into 4 hearts and blow the stick apart, 4 heart bearers will die.

if i go under water with no air and stay there long enough...i will die.

 

[diver52]

Im not sure why youre such a poor assertion machine.

You dunno how to extrapolate properly, so whh dont you just ASK...>Saves time, saves headache, etc etc

And then we can progress. Example: you just said we can conceptualize but thats not knowing.

The Law of identity, A is A, disproves that. The Principle of excluded middle disproves that and the Law of Non contradiction as well.

You can KNOW, conceptualize, the future this way. Touch a screaming hot stove bare skinned and you will be burned...times 7 million examples.

Im not sure why cause and effect preclude intent from mattering. Of course intent matters, thats why mere killing isnt morally wrong because you can be killing to prevent greater suffering...like killing a mass shooter.

That was a waste of time dude... you need to SIT DOWN with these things and CONTEMPLATE before wasting time with invalid extrapolations/assertions.

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

Im sorry. I addressed this in my previous post that you only gave a 1 sentence answer to.

2 plus 2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow.

A nuclear bomb is going to destroy x-area of earth, measurable by scientific calculation.

Light will travel at the same speed, its a constant.

All this weird talk about how we cannot objectively evaluate the future effects of causes is non-sensical...the laws of logic(as I described in the previous post) already answer this objection.

If you touch 500degrees bare-skinned, you will be burned. You dont need to touch it to objectively determine that.

if i put a stick of dynamite into 4 hearts and blow the stick apart, 4 heart bearers will die.

if i go under water with no air and stay there long enough...i will die.

None of that responds to the problem. You are going to apply tests to measure suffering. How are you going to apply those tests to suffering that never happened?

 

[G.T.]

Ok. You are flat wrong. I'll stop wasting my time now.

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

Im sorry. I addressed this in my previous post that you only gave a 1 sentence answer to.

2 plus 2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow.

A nuclear bomb is going to destroy x-area of earth, measurable by scientific calculation.

Light will travel at the same speed, its a constant.

All this weird talk about how we cannot objectively evaluate the future effects of causes is non-sensical...the laws of logic(as I described in the previous post) already answer this objection.

If you touch 500degrees bare-skinned, you will be burned. You dont need to touch it to objectively determine that.

if i put a stick of dynamite into 4 hearts and blow the stick apart, 4 heart bearers will die.

if i go under water with no air and stay there long enough...i will die.

None of that responds to the problem. You are going to apply tests to measure suffering. How are you going to apply those tests to suffering that never happened?

It addresses it directly. By examining suffering thats already occurred, and applying the scientific method...we come up with accurate predictions of the future.

 

[diver52]

On second thought, I will waste my time a tad more. I have to compliment you. Yours is the first concept of morality I have seen which is actually a physical impossibility. I am impressed.

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

Im sorry. I addressed this in my previous post that you only gave a 1 sentence answer to.

2 plus 2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow.

A nuclear bomb is going to destroy x-area of earth, measurable by scientific calculation.

Light will travel at the same speed, its a constant.

All this weird talk about how we cannot objectively evaluate the future effects of causes is non-sensical...the laws of logic(as I described in the previous post) already answer this objection.

If you touch 500degrees bare-skinned, you will be burned. You dont need to touch it to objectively determine that.

if i put a stick of dynamite into 4 hearts and blow the stick apart, 4 heart bearers will die.

if i go under water with no air and stay there long enough...i will die.

None of that responds to the problem. You are going to apply tests to measure suffering. How are you going to apply those tests to suffering that never happened?

It addresses it directly. By examining suffering thats already occurred, and applying the scientific method...we come up with accurate predictions of the future.

No, you can't. The very notion is ludicrous. Not least because you are not predicting the future. You are predicting what would have happened in the past had you done something else. You are assuming that the results of one decision will be the same as the results of an entirely different decision.

If you had tripped on a crack in the sidewalk yesterday, what would your injuries have been and how much would you have suffered?

 

[G.T.]

Thats an assertion, not an argument.

You standard of morality is the effects of an action causes more or less suffering. You might also say more or less happiness. All of those terms, "more", "less", "greater", "lesser" are comparative. If I ask you which number has a greater value, 7 - it makes no sense. You have to have at least one more number in order to make that comparison. Otherwise, all you have is 7. Neither greater nor lesser. Neutral.

Now apply that to your standard. You make the decision to take action A (the cause). You then apply whatever method you are going to use to evaluate the effects arising from that action. But that is just one set of effects. The fact that you made the decision to take action A means that you did not take action B. You can expand that out to an infinite number of other actions, but the result will always be the same. You can only take one action. Since you didn't take action B, the effects that might have arisen from that action never occurred. You cannot objectively evaluate what never happened. You can only guess.

This means the effects of every action stand alone. There is no other set of effects to which to compare them. Like our number 7, they just are. Neither greater nor lesser. Thus all actions can only be deemed morally neutral.

This is why your concept of morality is physically impossible.

Im sorry. I addressed this in my previous post that you only gave a 1 sentence answer to.

2 plus 2 is going to equal 4 tomorrow.

A nuclear bomb is going to destroy x-area of earth, measurable by scientific calculation.

Light will travel at the same speed, its a constant.

All this weird talk about how we cannot objectively evaluate the future effects of causes is non-sensical...the laws of logic(as I described in the previous post) already answer this objection.

If you touch 500degrees bare-skinned, you will be burned. You dont need to touch it to objectively determine that.

if i put a stick of dynamite into 4 hearts and blow the stick apart, 4 heart bearers will die.

if i go under water with no air and stay there long enough...i will die.

None of that responds to the problem. You are going to apply tests to measure suffering. How are you going to apply those tests to suffering that never happened?

It addresses it directly. By examining suffering thats already occurred, and applying the scientific method...we come up with accurate predictions of the future.

No, you can't. The very notion is ludicrous. Not least because you are not predicting the future. You are predicting what would have happened in the past had you done something else. You are assuming that the results of one decision will be the same as the results of an entirely different decision.

If you had tripped on a crack in the sidewalk yesterday, what would your injuries have been and how much would you have suffered?

That's super short-sighted, I dont know what else to tell you. Science is literally based on future testable predictions. And tripping on the sidewalk is not a behavior choice...so it's amoral. Not moral or immoral.

Why don't you go drown yourself if you don't think you head under water for 25 minutes with no oxygen will do what it's done to people for eternity. Live that weird shit you're preaching.

 

[SweetSue92]

What is value in a godless universe?

The same thing it is in a Universe with a God. The importance, worth or usefulness of something.

It is not even close to the same. Your life may be useful to other humans, but so what? What is important? What is worth?

You "sit on God's lap to smack His face" when you invoke these things. You are born, you want to live because you have been gifted with that instinct, you die. So what? Why is your life more valuable than that of a mushroom?

Your assertions dont mean much to me, rationally. Theyre unjustified.

I can justify my value by merely questioning those that love me. I can also value my own life, as it brings me joy and so thats what gives it worth to me.

If there was some everlasting sky existence in some other realm after this one, it devalues this Earth-life in the sense that its not all that Id have...its merely temporary. I dont live my life that way, I think its ridiculous and cheapens things that I cherish.

You're invoking rationalism but then contradicting it in the same post. If your life has objective, rational value than that value exists across all time and places. If not, then you're just comparing ice cream flavors, basically--you're polling opinions.

The fact is that you cannot assert that your life has any intrinsic worth from your worldview. You can FEEL it has worth; you can WANT it to have worth. You can poll your kids, your dog, or the mushrooms in your backyard to see if it has worth. But it doesn't matter. You, me, all of us are "molecules in motion"--we are all essentially worthless. You have no RATIONAL case for your worthiness.

value is subjective, i never said differently. Also, rationality can be used for literally anything, so to say that one shouldnt..or couldnt...invoke it when determining value is just plain fucking stupid.

In your worldview value must be subjective.

It is absolutely not in mine.