It's impossible to morally justify eating meat... - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
It's impossible to morally justify eating meat... It's impossible to morally justify eating meat...
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2020, 06:28 PM   #31 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic View Post
Is that all the thanks I get, jwb ?

I thought I was doing you a favour by suggesting a moral code that was "generally accepted by most people", but even Frownland, asking for One True Morality didn't say it should be demonstrably objective.
Sorry if I seem ungrateful but I'm not looking for favors. If you agree with me then cool. If you disagree with me then cool. Honestly, the way this thread is going, I certainly wouldn't mind some actually engaging and challenging disagreements.

But yeah... I interpret one true morality and objective morality as the same thing and I think that was exactly the implication Frownland was making. If it can't be substantiated objectively then what exactly makes it the " one true morality?"
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 06:32 PM   #32 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 22,033
Default
Only Sam Harris can answer such profundities.
__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 07:30 PM   #33 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default
Instead of talking about objective morality you need to be talkinf about internally consistent morality.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 07:48 PM   #34 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Not necessarily.

You can easily construct an internally consistent morality to justify just about anything. It needs some connection to the popular consensus and culture cause that's the easiest constraint to ground this discussion in terms of moral arguments that are actually viable in the society in which we live. Arguably, the Nazis had a fairly internally consistent moral framework.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 07:57 PM   #35 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
Kant originally argued that morality could be reasoned
Pretty sure Sam Harris handwaved Kant away in his arguments. He basically rephrases consequentialism but stresses that it's also extra based on science.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 02:32 PM   #36 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 22,033
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
being a consequentialist is fine

however it's pretty funny if he considers himself that after he tried to argue the consequences of US foreign policy don't matter, only the intent
I still listen to his podcast and I do enjoy them but there’s something very idiosyncratic about how he thinks. He often goes on about how everything is just luck of the draw and if you understand that you could be a master of compassion like he obviously considers himself. Then he’ll go into a diatribe about how people should simply follow orders when they’re being arrested like he’s completely oblivious to the fact that an arrest is absolutely financially devastating for most of the people you see being arrested on youtube. Or he’s wildly perplexed at how anyone could defend looting or arson. I’m not saying he’s just expressing his opposition to these things but it’s that he’s seemingly entirely incapable of seeing it from the perspective of someone who’s just ****ing furious because they’ve been poor and disenfranchised their entire life. Even like Tucker Carlson has some awareness of how the other side thinks even if he thinks it’s stupid and abhorrent he’s not entirely oblivious to that which he disagrees. But Sam Harris thinks he’s deeply empathetic, or at least compassionate, but in fact he’s completely isolated in an intellectual bubble of extreme privilege. And again I’m not calling him out on being privileged or even enjoying it but the contrast between what he thinks he can see and what he actually sees is something to behold.
__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 04:10 PM   #37 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
being a consequentialist is fine

however it's pretty funny if he considers himself that after he tried to argue the consequences of US foreign policy don't matter, only the intent
to be fair I don't think that was the argument, if you're referring to the chomsky exchange

It was that intent matters, because it's a good predictor of further behavior in the future, which ultimately is a consequentialist argument in favor of weighing in intent as a relevant variable.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 07:25 PM   #38 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
Bubble of privilege is right

he talks like someone who hasn't seen any real adversity in his entire life
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2020, 07:32 PM   #39 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 22,033
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
Bubble of privilege is right

he talks like someone who hasn't seen any real adversity in his entire life
That’s a more succinct way of saying it.

He grew up super rich with a famous television producer for a mother and it shows. Mom and Pop scholarship to Stanford with lots of international travel thrown in.
__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 4 « First 23 4

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.